Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fistoffoucault (talk | contribs) at 04:59, 24 July 2011 (→User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    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)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457

    Resolved
     – Complaint was withdrawn by nom OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: Femininity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fistoffoucault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Fistoffoucault has [been notified]

    I initially posted this at 3RR or edit warring but was directed to post it here.

    I just reported Fistoffoucault for edit warring and got a "No violation" result. I do not wish to rehash that but to report on his behavior since that result.

    The most significant act being that he wrote the below taunting message at the top of my talk page...

    [1] Dave, I noticed you have some trouble spelling English words, if you need help with your English, just let me know.Fistoffoucault (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of the reason that he was not blocked at Edit warring was because he was somewhat apologetic and wrote in part...

    I'm sorry for forgetting to include edit summaries. I can see that this has bothered you.

    Note that I asked him several times to include edit summaries but he refuses to, he doesn't "forget".

    Note that he wrote the above in response to my accusation of edit warring fearing he was going to get blocked, however when he received a "no violation" result he immediately went back to his old ways and made the following edit diff where he gave no edit summary and removed the image, Young Woman Drawing, which is the present consensus as explained in my original edit warring complaint.

    He also proceeded to made these significant changes, again without any edit summary. diff

    In short I just don't understand how his behavior is in any way acceptable, which is in summary...

    • taunting
    • refusal to be considerate of others and use edit summaries to describe and explain his edits.

    and

    • refusal to accept apparent present consensus.

    If you do read my other edit warring claim, in light of the fact that my argument was long winded, be sure to skip over the History section stuff and jump to the sentence that is in bold and reads...

    Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

    Dave3457 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I'm sorry you thought I was taunting; I noticed your edits and talk comments had a lot of mistakes and I was genuinely offering to help you. 2. Again, I sometimes forget the edit summaries. I promise I don't do it on purpose. 3. There is no current consensus on the picture. USChick has eliminated the picture many times. You and Avanu support the current picture. Aroneol and I supported the shaman picture. Doesn't it seem better to have no picture until we can agree?

    The edit war was resolved as a "no violation" by administrators. Your frequent alteration of the psychology section without reference to sources (and without maintaining neutrality) is as much an instance of edit warring as my changes.

    The offer still stands! Fistoffoucault (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    xxxxxxx

    Regarding Fistoffoucault's claim that he was not taunting me but trying to help me...
    In his response to my edit warring claim he wrote...
    I resent that you have used this means of resolving this issue.
    Fistoffoucault also wrote in the response....
    diff I've been told by other users that you have mentioned on other pages that you hate feminism because it destroys romance. I wonder if you should continue to be involved in this particular area if you feel so strongly about something that is a generally accepted part of academic discourse--and an essential methodology for writing this article.
    The above statement has somehow been deleted from his response as it presently appears in the archive, I couldn't find the diff describing how that happened.
    Regarding Fistoffoucault's "forgetting" to use edit summaries...
    Here is a quote from my edit warring claim...
    In spite of my repeated requests, Fistoffoucault often refuses to use edit summaries. I wrote the below on the femininity talk page.
    [[2]] Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy. I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be.
    Fistoffoucault, did not respond even though I used his name in the edit summary when I wrote the above.diff
    Fistoffoucault is however correct that, even though I disagree with the "no violation" ruling, I should not have used that claim in this incident report.
    Dave3457 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave, as you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm sorry for pissing you off by not writing edit summaries--I really do forget. I envy the fact that you have so much time to devote to Wikipedia; I've got a job though, so I'm pretty busy. I'll try and pay more attention to these small details in the future. But in the meantime, shouldn't you assume benign intent?

    Looking forward to getting along better! Fistoffoucault (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If your comment on my talk page was not taunting, then how were you going to help me with the "spelling of English words" ?
    Dave3457 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can provide you with any number of educational materials in .pdf format--I have a lot of friends who are English teachers. Additionally, we could have spelling bees/tests over Skype...I don't know, it was merely a friendly offer. It looks now like you speak OK English, and that you just make a lot of spelling mistakes.Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of erring on the side of good, I will withdraw this incident report.
    Its my hope that you will continue to include edit summaries and quite frankly if you do not have time to keep up to date with what going on on the talk page about a given section you should not be editing that section. Its my sense that you aren't and its extremely disruptive. Taking the time to defend your edits comes with making those edits. I would refer you to this comment I directed toward you after your last edit. Talk:Femininity#Behavior_and_personality_Section
    Dave3457 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well

    MakeSense64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I am used to intense debate, but MakeSense64 has an exceptional pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing and harassment. On 12 January 2009, he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [3] The account was reactivated on 27 May 2011. In two months and nearly 1000 edits over 90% have related to astrology, stars or biographies of astrologers.[4] In almost every case, his arguments and edits have been obstructive or destructive towards the field of western astrology. Though he appears to be a new editor, his detailed knowledge and use of WP rules suggests he is a highly experienced editor who has been reported on this page before.[5]

    There is not space here to document the many specific examples:

    • An example of how he disrupts and makes major edits in the face of consensus.
      • Discussions on the Astrology Talk page concerning one word were extended for a month, partly due to his intransigence. [6]
      • He ignored responses to his posts and repeatedly raised arguments that had been addressed. [7]line 612
      • He polarized the argument see here by repeatedly raising unrelated issues from a recent edit war.
      • To break the impasse, I proposed a 48 hour straw poll resulting in 5 in favour of the change and 1 against. MakeSense64 abstained. A few days after the changes were made, he undid the text. I reverted with a comment that this was disruptive. Next day, he edited the lede substantially with unsourced additions that were diametrically opposed to the spirit of the consensus. Another editor undid these edits and warned him to stop being so disruptive.[8]
      • Two days after a consensus had been reached, Makesense64 reopened the debate with a new section on the talk page. [9] Several new editors who were not involved in the debate or the straw poll argued against his rehashed points.
    • Much of MakeSense64's editing involves tagging articles. [10][11][12] (approx 93 astrology sites between 9 June - 19 July) Some are valid, but very many are unjustified. His tagging is directed at schools, groups and biographies of astrologers, including my own. I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP, but consider it harassment that he put tags on my biography within 12 hours of me undoing his posts. [13] After another editor removing the tags, he reapplied them on 19 July after I undid his unauthorized edit for the second time.
    • My record shows I only edit a controversial page after discussing it on the talk page and only with the support of the editors. But MakeSense64 is consistently partisan and driven by his own agenda. He admits to being an astrologer in the past [14] and his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war [15] and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors [16]

    I am asking administrators to look into this with the hope that you can block or ban him editing all astrology related pages and discussion pages. Robert Currey talk 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: "His agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI". I hope Robert Currey has strong evidence to back that up, as otherwise a little star-gazing reveals that a large boomerang will be on its way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an administrator either - that isn't a requirement here. If you have evidence, I suggest you provide it (with diffs from Wikipedia - take note of our policy on outing if that is relevant) - though again, beware boomerangs: accusing someone of having a "sinister agenda" is rather risky if you can't back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can back this up – although I could add a lot more were it not for the outing policy. I can also provide numerous examples of where experienced and non-involved editors have criticized Makesense64 for non-constructive, disruptive and tendentious editing. I don’t know an adjective big enough to describe how glad I am that Robert Currey raised this complaint on a situation that has gone on for too long. I am putting some diffs together now and will comment again shortly. And yes, I’m aware of boomerangs but I’ll take the risk. I have come close to quitting WP altogether several times because of the harassment of this editor and don’t think I would want to hang around much longer if something isn’t done about this.Zac Δ talk 23:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? Am I to post the evidence you asked for or not? In defence of Robert's suggestion of an agenda I think I should, because Robert Currey has no idea what I know, since I am someone he has been haressing directly. I am able to show, without revealing his off-wiki identity, that he has definitely targeted the biography of an astrologer whilst simultaneously engaging in an off-wiki hate campaign against that person due to professional conflict regarding his preferred branch of astrology. (This is not normal BTW, most astrologers have healthy respect for other branches of astrology). Also that he has commercial interests in the sale of his own astrology software programs. I have raised this issue before and can point to the diffs, or at least what remains of what can be seen, following the censorship of some comments for the sake of the outing policy. For this he has complained about me officially twice, and that's why I have never instigated a complaint against him myself, for fear he will paint himself as the victim instead, (Both complaints were dismissed BTW, the only criticism being directed towards him for being uncivil - but still, instead of engaging with him further, I have adopted the policy of shunning him as much as I am able to. I am able to provide full verification of everything in private, if necessary. Indeed, in early June I asked the administrator AGK, who advertises help with arbitration issues, for assistance on how I could initiate a complaint myself, since I was inhibited by the outing policy - but although he initially offered to help, after several weeks he was still enmeshed in other wiki-things and couldn’t find time to look into it so I dropped it. I should also add that I changed my username from Clooneymark to Zachariel in the naive hope that it would detract Makesense64 from targeting my contributions so disruptively. Someone please confirm if I am to proceed with the details and provide the diffs or not. If not, then fine - I'll drop it. But the point is he acts from an agenda and his editing history is enough to show that he is deliberately disruptive, and not concerned about contributing productively or constructively to WP Zac Δ talk 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is up to you, obviously - it just seemed sensible to me to wait for a response before going too deeply into this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, have you looked at the edit history of Makesense64? Surely you must be aware of the disruptions. Don't act surprised, you have been following this long enough and you certainly know the rules well enough to know better. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not really commented on Makesense64's editing history - I have however pointed out that before making allegations about him/her having a COI, and an "agenda" ("sinister" or otherwise) is likely to require strong evidence. As for the rest, as I've already stated, I think that we should wait from a response from him/her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Before considering my experience, consider this in regard to tendentious, disruptive editing. Here's some of the comments addressed to Makesense64 from other editors (not Robert Currey / not me) about some of the disruption he causes:

    “I find your discouragement of a new editor to be distinctly non-constructive. I find nothing even remotely constructive in your statement about "If other people insist on destroying the article" There has definitely been some non-constructive feedback provided”

    All the previous edits were undertaken in good faith following extensive consultation amongst the editors. You have suddenly and without advance notice, consultation or any other reasonable notice made drastic changes to the topic. You are editing disruptively against consensus and against the interests of collaborative editing on Wikipedia.

    (Three from the same editor - re issues raised on the NPOV noticeboard):

    As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring

    Standing alone is against the basic principles of how Wikipedia works. The basis of decision making in Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Warring to achieve aims is wholly wrong and can lead to administrative action.

    What you are doing is removing information rather than linking to where there is extra information. I have reverted your deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for you to exercise your hangups about deleting everything that is not scientific. Plese try to improve the content and coverage rather than deleting well sourced information.

    every single one of your edits was with the aim of degrading astrology and overly emphasizing it's pseudoscientific nature. Moreover, none of your edits had consensus, which would indicate POV pushing. I suggest that you work with the editors on this page before unilaterally making such one-sided changes

    Your posting a spammer warning on their talk page was excessive.

    Do you need more?

    In regard to incivility, as an inexperienced editor the very first interaction I had with any wikipedian came from Makesense64 in May when he placed this final warning that if I “spammed again” I could be blocked from editing without further notice, and the website whose pages I had given as external links (because they offered interviews with the subjects of the biographies) - Skyscript.cok - could be blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites. The warning (the first of many I was to receive from him) specifically referred to links on the Deborah Houlding biography, who is the creator of the Skyscript website. See Makesense64's contribution history for how, when he resumed his editing activity at the end of May this year, (following a series of contributions to Chinese astrology pages in 2009) his first action was question the biography of Deborah Houlding on the notability noticeboard, here

    In defense of the spamming accusation, I argued the links were relevant and helped establish notability – and tried to fix the problems on the pages but all my edits met with unreasonable obstruction by Makesense64, who resolutely maintained that there could be no link to the Skyscript website on the Deborah Houlding biography, even though she was the creator of that site, because it would be spam ..., it would break WP NPOV policy by promoting pseudoscience .., one excuse after another. A few days later Houlding gave a statement that this editor was someone who was engaging in a vendetta against her because a few days earlier (just before he resumed his WP activities) she had banned him from the forum of the Skyscript website. Houlding also gave links to his commercial astrology sites, where on one he had placed condemnatory remarks about the Skyscript site and how it had banned him - but all this was removed because the links revealed his identity. Makesense64 also removed other comments himself, such as the subsequent comment of another editor who acknowledged the statement. I let this roll because he initiated a complaint about the fact that I continued to refer to the situation (although not repeating the information about his identity) in arguing that because of his COI and vexatious attitude towards western astrologers, he should not be allowed to continue editing those kinds of pages. See the talk posts from here:

    He never denied this BTW, simply maintained that he doesn't need to be a neutral editor since no one really is, and all that matters is that his editorial contributions are neutral. But the fact is that he is not a contributing editor, he very rarely adds anything to content and never makes attempts to resolve the problems that he tags (sometimes for no good reason at all, as I believe was the case when he tagged Robert Currey's biography). His editorial contributions are all about deleting content, reducing content, causing dissent and division on talk pages and proposing that anything related to western astrology or western astrologers is expressed in the most negative sense. He obstructs almost all of my Wikipedia contributions, using every way possible to twist WP policy. (Yes – he knows the rules far too well; does it sound feasible that an editor with only 9 days editing experience in his whole WP history, would be bold enough to place notices on boards, tag numerous pages, and place a “final warning” on my talkpage?).

    Since my editorial interest is in a controversial subject, I frequently work with editors of different views, some highly skeptical; but I have not encountered anyone completely unreasonable as this editor is, or who I view to be editing WP from a wholly disruptive motive as I believe he is. I hope others will comment too because the problems he causes are widespread, although especially focussed on anything I try to contribute. He has a habit of deleting at least one of my contributions per day, for clinging to arguments and repeatingly asking for his questions to be answered again, and most definitely has caused me to abandon trying to contribute content on pages where he will not let the argument drop. He should not be allowed edit the astrology pages, but also consider that most of his disruption is about causing argument and uneccessary division on astrology talk pages, because that is where he seems to delight in baiting and proposing that his arguments are all backed by WP policy! Zac Δ talk 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    AndytheGrump you will admit, will you not, that this editor has definitely masqueraded under the pretence of being a sceptic, and that from the arguments he makes, you would never have considered that he makes a living from the sale of his own astrological software? Zac Δ talk 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure why you are asking me to 'admit' anything. I'm in no position (as someone involved in disputes over the Astrology article, and as a non-admin) to decide one way or another whether your claims are valid. As I've already stated, my input so far has been to point out that serious accusations need strong proof. I'll leave it to others to decide as to whether this has been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, on reflection, I accept your point about COI. I recognize that I have COI as my interests are on public record and you might if say you are an editor of a sceptical book or magazine etc. My complaint is about his disruptive behaviour on WP which is not in question. His/her motivations are background issues that may or may not account for the intense focus on tagging, deleting, marginalising, polarizing and disruptive editing in a particular field. Robert Currey talk 08:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If this story were to fully check out, it would be a pretty damning account of MakeSense64 not making sense, so to speak. Such an editor has no role on Wikipedia in my mind. Is there some way we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify this? I'll ignore the sales of astrology software bit for the time being. CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) In response to the complaints formulated by Robert Currey.

    • It is true I went through a lot of astrologer pages on WP, checking all pages on List of astrologers, tagging those that have serious issues and cleaning up some spam where it was obvious. Later I did the same for the category 21st-century_astrologers. I went over them alphabetically, over the course of several days, something which can be easily seen in my edit history. If some articles were unfairly tagged, then Robert Currey is welcome to bring the diffs.
    • He complained on my Talk page about harassment after I tagged his page Robert Currey, and subsequently two uninvolved editors have come in to remove the tags, without doing anything about the issues with the page. Just have a look at Robert Currey, some 'references' are nothing but pages that give the address of his shop in London. A 'selected books' section, and so on.. Tagging a page like that is harrasment?
    • A group of editors have been on my neck since I started tagging astrology articles. The most vocal of them is User:Zachariel, and you will find his constant personal attacks and ad hominem comments about me on nearly every Talk page where he engaged me. I have told him many times that personal comments should go on my User_talk, but he doesn't care about WP guidelines. His actions started about here [17] and have continued ever since. If I need to bring more diffs, then tell me how many are needed. This editor has been on a mission to bring more astrology into astronomy articles, something he discussed with other editors on the WikiProject_Astrology Talk. I advised against that idea. While Robert Currey is more civil editor, he frequently came in to support Zachariel's efforts, and it was also Zachariel who went to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey page. The activity suggests a connection between these editors.
    • On July 6-7 Zachariel reverted 3 or 4 times on the Algol page within 24 hours, and I gave a 3RR warning on his Talk page. He laughed in my face, saying that he was 'implementing overriding policies'. Since then a group of editors, Robert Currey being one of them, seems to be taking turns in reverting almost any edit I do on several pages. A coincidence? I do not object to editors reverting a bold edit, but they do not engage in discussion after doing it. My questions are either negated, or answers are not to the point. Recently the discussions have been on Talk:Astrology, where there is now a long list of unaddressed questions.
    • Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?

    I could go on about this, but then I would be writing a book. I think none of the above is a coincidence, and before I bring the diffs that admins may want me to bring I invite them to take a look at some other evidence. For more than a month Zachariel and Robertcurrey are contending that I am in a vendetta against astrology. But there is evidence that just the opposite is the case, this is their vendetta against any skeptics of astrology, whether they are working on BBC or on WP. Please have a look at this recent note on Facebook [18], where some Robert Currey is basically trying to recruit meatpuppets, asking for ideas on how to get around the WP rules, advising new editors to first work on 'other' articles before they go on to the 'real' work, asking them to contact him first, and so on..
    Could it be that some of the new editors that came to the scene on Talk: Astrology and immediately criticized me, are some of these new recruits? Could it be that I am seen as a disruption for the plans they have on WP? Because I don't go away too easily, even in the face of ongoing ad hominem comments?

    So, I ask some admin to take a look into the editors that have lined up to revert my edits in the recent days, without even making an attempt to engage in subsequent discussion on the Talk page. I also noticed yesterday that some of the new names that pop up are the same names that were involved in problems on the Astrology page before. E.g User:Petersburg and User:Aquirata, who came in to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey article.

    MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you trying to suggest about “very similar language to Zac”? Be clear about your arguments, as I have been, so that anything which needs to be looked into can be. You give a link to one comment from the many difficult situations you have dragged me into, and if that’s as bad as it gets in your criticism of me then it suggests that you can multiply examples but you can’t strengthen (or justify) your argument. I’ve already proven the motive of my involvement, which is self-evident in the contribution histories on record. I did very little on WP (beyond minor typos and links) until the day that you slapped a spamming warning on my user page, and that is when I started contributing to WP in earnest, to justify why I was not a spammer. Here is my contribution history to show how my only editing contributions since 2007 were 1 minor typo and three submissions of relevant links (the latter on 1st June)
    Here is yours to show that (unknown to me then) you had reactivated your account by making a call to the notability noticeboards about one of those pages, saying “I came across this page Deborah Houlding and wonder if it passes the notability test ? …” (how disingenious) - and then you placed your spamming warning on my user page on 9:27 am June 2nd.
    Admins here can easily see for themselves that my WP involvement got active, immediately, from that point onwards, and for no other reason than that. From a sense of moral outrage that you would accuse me of being a spammer and that my arguments that those pages I had placed links on should not be tagged as lacking notability – which I then offered to help fix to demonstrate my argument.
    Houlding’s email address is on public record. Her statement said that she did not want to post herself because your attempts to undermine her character were widespread and she had drawn a line under her negative interraction with you when she banned you from her website. She also said that she had sent her statement and her own complaint to the WP helpdesk, offering more information if necessary.
    (I see you have since removed the comment where your only defence was to say that what she wrote was irrelevant because it broke the outing policy and the only thing that mattered was that your published contributions adhered to WP policy, not your lack of personal involvment or neutrality.)
    Her email address is advertised on her site: deb@skyscript.co.uk I am not going to email her myself about this because I have had too much trouble already on the backlash that came from her statement. Otherwise I would and it might be a good idea if someone else does.
    You can try to suggest some conspiracy of you wish, you were obviously going to try to drag up something to obscure the facts. The facts are these – I post for myself, I became an active editor in direct response to the intimidating warning you placed on my user page – and since there have been so many of these, I routinely delete them and refuse to indulge your desire to bait me by entering into talk-page discussions with you on your talk-page.
    When I first raised this issue it brought me nothing but aggravation, so I decided to remain quiet about this (until now), and have been trying to edit around your obstructions lately by shunning you as much as possible without failing to answer your arguments and questions when I need to. See WP:shun, for the recommended advice that I have been trying to follow lately. Don’t pretend to be a sceptic – you are not even a pseudosceptic, you are just a someone who uses WP to pursue your own personal vendettas.
    To AndytheGrump, I wasn't suggesting you had anything to admit to, I was asking you to share your own experience, by which you can surely that this editor (who makes his living selling his own astrology software) has falsely presented himself as a sceptic who rejects astrology completely. (Note western astrology, he has contributed positively to Chinese astrology pages, including inserting links that go to his own Chinese astrology services - this was also demonstrated in the removed material, because by giving the link to his websites, his off-wiki identity is revealed)
    Makesense64 - do you want to deny this? I am willing to give further accounts to admins privately if required Zac Δ talk 10:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, there are a few independent and long-experienced editors, whose contribution histories show no involvement in astrology-related topics, who would be free of accusations of being involved in astrology-disputes, who could verify different aspects of what I have reported and/or give independent accounts of how obstructive and disruptive his editing has been. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing. Zac Δ talk 10:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Makesense64 (typo) Zac, if you wish to seek comment from other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, one must be careful not to make a comment in asking them to comment that would sound like Wikicanvassing. For that reason, having been suggested of it once before (I wasn't) and not wanting the same fate for you, please visit my talk page and give me the names of the people you want to ask to participate. I will notify them neutrally about this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was me who asked that, not Makesense64. I'll do that. Zac Δ talk 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, twas a typo. Corrected and section on talk page noted. Give me a few. CycloneGU (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - Neutral notifications sent. CycloneGU (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a notice about this discussion. The only experience I remember with MakeSense64 was working on the Deborah Houlding article. I came across it because I sometimes check out the "Notability" noticeboard and wanted to have a look. Generally I do not believe in astrology but at the same time I realize that others do, and my aim was to be fair to astrologers and the subject because some Wikipedia readers want to know about such stuff, so I try to help in keeping with Wikipedia's rules and not let my POV (not believing in astrology) affect my contributions. I have not read the previous discussion in detail on this ANI page and I will only comment on the Houlding article; so please only consider this one thing -- I am not qualified to make an overall assessment of someone's edits elsewhere. I went over key changes made by MakeSense64 in the past month or so on the Deborah Houlding article and examined them to see if they were within Wikipedia's rules. Here they go: (1) MakeSense64 tagged the Houlding article as unsourced; it was unsourced, so this was correct; so it's within the rules. (2) MakeSense64 added a "no more links" hidden editing warning in the external links; constructive in my view since this discourages spammers; within the rules. (3) MakeSense64 removed unsourced material; it was unsourced and yes, maybe it was a little rough, but it was unsourced stuff in a BLP (including unsourced stuff that DH had some kind of tumor); within the rules. (4) MakeSense64 added a "notability" tag; there were 3 references at that point, it was a rather bare bones article at that point, so the tag here was somewhat dubious possibly but one could argue that the quality of the references was substandard, possibly, because the topic of what constitutes a good reference in the astrological world -- well, I'm not sure; so I'm kind of extending the benefit of the doubt here: within the rules. (5) MakeSense64 did a copyedit changing "She has been" to "Sydney Omarr" said...; improvement, since it's more accurate; within the rules. So, trying to look at it impartially, my guess is that MakeSense64 was playing by the rules on this article. In this situation, MakeSense64 had to contend with me working to make the Deborah Houlding article into a competent one and I can be a rather persistent and stubborn type who usually gets my way since I really really try to work within Wikipedia's rules and I'm an adept researcher and competent copyeditor -- perhaps in some other situation, MakeSense64 could have whittled down articles which didn't have an adversary. I don't know. But overall in the Houlding instance, MakeSense64 was, in my view, while an adversary to me, working within Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a notice for this as well, and I don't recall ever being involved with anyone in this dispute in the past (or astrology-related articles), but I believe that's why I was given the notice (sort of a WP:3O request). I looked at the complaints above and followed the links by Makesense64, and right now I just have one comment. MakeSense64, you said:
    • "Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?"
    I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's a case where Zachariel's complaints were valid, and so they were echoed by other editors. Maybe you should listen to the chorus of complaints against you and not dismiss them. Anytime I see a case where an editor accuses (or hints) of sock- or meatpuppetry when they receive consistent criticism of their actions, things don't end well. Also, just to point out, I see no personal attacks from Zachariel, a complaint about an editor's behavior is not a personal attack. -- Atama頭 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This complaint starts "he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [19]". As far as I can tell, in that diff all he does is provide a ref for an unref'd statement: he adds no article text. A brief scan through the rest of your diffs didn't show anything particularly interesting, either. This isn't all a snit because he tagged your COI bio, is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    MakeSense64, you have cleverly turned the argument around to my bio. I have already written here “I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP,” and I once suggested to User:Verbal (who loved to tag pages like you) that it was deleted. My complaint is that on the two occasions where I undid your posts on other pages, both times you responded by placing tags on my biography within 24 hours. Your claim that you were merely following the list of astrologers is false as I have never been on that list! This timing was ill-advised since it suggests that you were pursuing revenge (harassment) rather than good editing as you claim. This is just one small issue among many bigger complaints about your behaviour.
    My public comments on Facebook took place in March and were not recent as you implied. At the time several editors who had expertise in astrology were banned from WP and I was the only editor permitted to remain. News of this was widely reported outside WP and this brought me a lot attention. At the time, there was a real possibility of a lot of angry astrologers reacting by piling into the Astrology Page and treating it like a forum without following the rules. If you read my comments, my advice was that they should not to get involved with the Astrology page and that if they wish to be an editor, they should adhere to the Wikipedia Rules. Otherwise we would have another edit war, which is not in anyone’s interest. And until you appeared on the scene stirring up trouble last month, I remained the only consistent editor on the astrology page with any knowledge of astrology.
    If anyone has recruited astrologers to Wikipedia, it is your practice of tagging some 93 astrology biographies, schools and organizations. This has served to irritate a huge community and it may account for reactivation of old accounts and an influx of new editors who don’t understand the rules. At one point, I seriously considered that your obsession with tagging was to motivate disinterested parties into a crusade. Certainly, your actions and inflammatory comments on astronomy pages appear to be designed to ignite potential disputes. For example you wrote “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.” on a WikiProject Astronomy page . In retrospect, I should have requested that you were barred from these astronomy pages as well.
    I understand why editors prefer to remain anonymous. Both the above personal comments are based on the fact that I have not disguised my identity. I think that taking advantage of my openness and mining public information about everything that I have ever done or written is the equivalent of outing an anonymous editor and using their activities outside WP.
    Rather than dig for dirt on my life outside Wikipedia and try to imply that everyone who disagrees with you has to be part of a conspiracy, you need to look in the mirror. Zac is one of several editors from all areas – many who have no history of editing astrology pages have found your activities disruptive. Incidentally, only two days ago one of the non-astrology editors who experienced the early disputes in March first hand, was kind enough to refer to both Zac and myself as being in a different category to those who were banned from WP in March, for having made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy.
    As you know when I first responded to you, I supported your request for solid verification. However, since then I have watched how extreme you activities are, but have resisted a strong urge to act like your personal cop. I have also tried to work with you on the Aries article and we even established a consensus on the talk page. However, I notice that yesterday you went back to that page and without discussion, deleted a section put in by an editor in good faith last month. This is typical of your policy to shoot first and only ask questions when it suits you later! You may not like the Western Signs of the Zodiac but continually trimming down these pages to a stub of an article does not serve the interests of 25% of the population who follow the subject.
    No matter how clever your arguments, it’s obvious that you are a divisive force within a community that is seeking to build bridges. Though I have not requested a total ban from Wikipedia, I believe that wherever you go on WP, the same problems will come up. Robert Currey talk 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The March ban [20] looks to be relevant. For example, the editor who reverted the tags on Robert Currey, User:Aquirata, should not have done so, because he was banned. Unless someone has undone said ban? Note also the text of the ban: People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe Tomsulcher doesn't realise, not having read the previous discussion, that one point he could help to clarify is that the Houlding statement was given, he saw it, acknowledged it, and so would be aware of what it reported (and that what I have described above is accurate). Zac Δ talk 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The posts have been removed from history, including your reply to Houlding. I recall that you acknowledged her statement, reassured her there there were editors on the page who would prevent innapropriate actions, and that you asked if she would submit a photo for the page. I remember because I was relieved that you at least had seen it before it was zapped from all record. Subsequently your post which responded to her has been zapped too. So now you understand why I am asking. Zac Δ talk 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I do not believe in astrology, I do favor assology (my POV) but again, I try to keep my POV out of my contributions here.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well here's a wierd thing, although Tomwsulcer's reply to Houlding can no longer be viewed by the history diffs because it has been deleted (see here), as has Makesense64's reply to the statement, the posts that relate to those diffs are still visible on the talk page under the extended content tab. This the code I have, just now, copied from the page.

    "

    Hello, comments noted. The material in the article at present is all based on reliable references and contributors here are doing our best, by following Wikipedia's rules, to make sure we follow the guidelines. And we'll be keeping watch of the article to make sure it's fair. Ms. Houlding, please email a picture of yourself to me via email at thomaswrightsulcer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. And give me permission to post it in Wikimedia Commons under license ccsa2.5. Say when the photo was taken approximately. That way, I can include your photo in this article, thanx."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributors are not required to explain why they spend more or less time on WP, or why they are inactive for certain periods. There can be a myriad of reasons for that. Contributors are also not required to be neutral (usually they are not), they are only required to apply the WP guidelines and write from a NPOV, which is what we have been trying to do here. To bring challenge to an article WP:CHALLENGE is also part of what is being done here, and it is not rarely the quickest way to get an article improved ( as this case shows)
    This article as I found it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&oldid=393392111 ) violated a lot of core WP principles, so I tagged it. I found similar problems on a number of astrology related articles and biographies and tagged or improved them as well. Fact is that Tomwsulcer has done most of the trimming and editing of this article here, and now added back some things for which some reference could be found. Ms. Houlding's complaint is thus nothing but an exagerated story, most of which cannot be verified, and interestingly she has nothing to say about Clooneymark, who woke up after a long period of inactivity, only to add more external links the day after Tomwsulcer had trimmed them to one. Ms. Houlding is asking to block me from abusing any WP page, without pointing out even a single WP page that has been abused by me.MakeSense64 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the comment by Ms. Houlding based on WP:OUTING MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
    Obviously the statement by Houlding has been removed from all accesible records Zac Δ talk 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall the Houlding talk page stuff being of any importance. I looked over MakeSense64's contributions to the Astrology article hereon July 19th. The contributions seemed to me to be reasonable, referenced, fair, within Wikipedia's rules.Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My personal observation: my recent request to gain unqualified support for working within Wikipedia rules on the astrology pages is undersubscribed, and the relevance of asking for that support has been explicitly challenged. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    Where you said "I ask for a simple show of hands – all who favour abiding by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, say yes, those opposed to these principles, guidelines and rulings, say no –" and several editors thought that was too silly to vote on? My comment "Peter let's just move forward. Commitment to Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings is surely self-evident by the collaborative effort to bring this page up to WP best standards. We don't need another time-diverting discussion when it's obvious that most editors here understand the issues involved and the necessity for consensus on how best to meet those policies and demonstrate their principles in every element of the page's content". Your response: "Gibber-jabber".
    On the whole most editors are working collaboratively and productively on that page. Zac Δ talk 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomwsulcher, from not appearing to have any clue what I was talking about when I asked you to remember your post, to now (after I found your forgotten response) remembering the statement it referred to as not “being of any importance”, some details of what is fair and reasonable and important may need to be reconsidered. So let me recap on a couple of things.
    This editor, whose edit you approved of, was insistent on making three references to pseudoscience in the lede of the astrology article – inserting an extra one into the first sentence, and then augmenting the one that already said “in its modern form astrology is a classic example of a pseudoscience” to read “In all its forms, astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience”. He removed citation requests on points editors were working collectively to substantiate and clarify, and removed the one positive point about astrology’s history from the lede, even though there had been a proposed structure to the lede that ran “outline introduction > historical outline > philosophical contradictions > pseudoscience status and scientific criticisms”.
    The citation requests were not there to dispute the pseudoscience status but to find clear authoritative references to substantiate it. We have asked more sceptical editors to help us get this right and most are showing a very positive willingness to offer valuable and constructive criticisms. But Makesense64 redesigned the content in his own preferred image in flagrant disregard to the good team of editors who have discussed and worked hard to establish consensus for over a month, and are doing their level best to bring this struggling article up to featured article status. So no, Makesense64’s edits were not fair and reasonable. No editor should remove citation requests until suitable citations are found. No editor should bloody-mindedly and repetitively revert and disrupt, and badger and harass, and call for talk-page answers to questions that have been answered over and over, particularly not in an article that has a prominent tag at the top saying:

    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

    There seems to be a lot of willingness to look in other ways here, and I understand that astrology may not be a very popular or well liked topic for many reasons. Regardless, just like any other subject it requires thoughtful attention and a clear representation of facts and its notable points of interest. There is a good collaborative team working hard on getting the content of this controversial subject just right, and a lot of talk page discussion is analysing sensitive problems very critically. Against this we have one disruptive editor who delights in creating division, argument, annoyance and frustration. Good editors will leave this project if administrators don’t take their blinkers off when someone who is acting against WP interest is supported because their actions undermine a subject they dislike.
    With regard to the statement Tomwsulcher doesn't remember so well. I remember it very well. This editor, who pretends to be a sceptic even though he makes his living from the sale of astrological software, was engaging in a malicious web-based off-wiki hate campaign about the subject of a biography page who at that time was being subjected to significant harassment and character assignation attempts by him. The reason was because his branch of astrological interest was different from hers. He was calling for the links to her website to be rejected as spam. He questioned her notability even though he was well aware of it. He reactivated his account two days after she had banned him for causing trouble in her forum. He was uncivil to me from the start because I sought to add content to her page. He initiated WP editing with a vexatious agenda and almost all of his edits have pursued this agenda one way or another. I have exaggerated nothing and could add more if it were not for the outing policy. I have offered to substantiate privately what I am not allowed to substantiate publicly here. If this is not a serious COI I don’t know what is. But regardless of all this, his contribution history speaks for itself and so I ask admins here to go back and consider Robert Cuerry's complaint more seriously, and keep in mind that this long-established editor (Robert Currey) has an excellent reputation for fairness and is not of a character to criticize anyone without strongly established good cause Zac Δ talk 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point that is missing is that MakeSense64 knows the rules and his actions cannot be judged on one edit but as part of a one month discussion involving at least 10 editors. How he deliberately and repeatedly asked the same questions, repeated the same arguments, didn't read other's posts, extended the debate, posted his edits without agreement in spite of 5 to 1 majority against in a straw poll and reopened the topic. His record has to be judged as a whole. Terry Macro (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zac 22:50 21 July above: How do you know that there were a number of editors who thought my proposition was too silly to vote on? Up until the time I posted on this page, you were the only editor who expressed that point of view. Have you been canvassing or communicating with other editors somewhere I wasn't looking? Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    Please check the page again and note the comment of 13:42 20 July, from the editor who whose comment began and ended: "This is beyond silly. All editors are in support of WP rules and guidelines by default... Please do not try to have editors conform to your ideal process of editing but follow WP rules and guidelines, as we all do (or strive for doing it anyway)"
    It is silly to ask for a vote on who is going to agree to policy, when there has been no reason at all to question that. If you returned to the page more than periodically, you would have a better awareness of how all your previous posts are properly discussed and answered. But you never engage with those responses, you just keep raising the points anew every few days as if no one has taken the trouble to address them already. So you don't seem to have noticed how there has been collective agreement to work to best standards and practice by using WP policy as the guideline to follow.
    You have been the only editor of the mindset of Makesense64, although until now you have not engaged in widescale destructive tagging which means that a group of editors working within the same subject interest are put under too much pressure to attend to too many articles at once. Yet within a few hours of my reply to you above, you raised an AdF request for three major articles on the history of Asrtrology: for Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology and Horoscopic astrology and announced on the main History of astrology page that you would return to delete every unreferenced comment in the article. This is another example of the kind of unreasonable and disruptive behaviour being complained against here, which cultivates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation amongst those who are working on fixing the problems, to improve the content rather than delete all the hard work that previous WP editors have contributed.
    Can an admin here tell me how these kinds of ANI requests for help get concluded? Do they all get resolved in one way or another, or can they drift off the page with nothing being done, after input which distracts the issue rather than focusses on the problem for which help has been requested? Zac Δ talk 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you, Zac, won’t allow me to discuss edits in the astrology page because I don’t have a local majority rule despite long established Wikipedia rules, and you won’t allow me to engage in the process of eliminating unverifiable content, which is Wikipedia policy, and you won’t allow me to argue a case about the article definition that doesn’t ignore article sub-pages, what exactly are you permitting me to do? When you take umbrage at ‘gibber-jabber’ characterising your posts, don’t make it true. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is equally silly - I have never prevented you from doing anything. I have also never minded or took umbridge at your talk-page responses, but do mind when you propose the deletion of three valuable pages for dubious motives after I responded to your comment here - this ANI request was initiated to prevent such problems, not perpetuate them) Zac Δ talk 09:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is turning into yet another long rambling discussion which is going nowhere. Its ben here several days and no admin has even sniffed at a block or ban - clearly you're not going to get admin action. So this should got to WP:DR or WP:RFCU if you want to take it further. I've boldly collapsed this, though I won't be surprised if someone uncollapses it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My sense is that people are evaluating MakeSense64 by seeing editing choices and extrapolating from these a kind of hostile agenda (that is, an agenda different from others.) Well, guess what. All Wikipedia contributors have differing agendas on many things and, as a result, battling happens often here. The way to approach this is not to make inferences about a person's character because of their agenda, but rather to limit yourself to this test: are they working within Wikipedia's rules? And the two articles I looked at, Deborah Houlding and Astrology, suggest that rules are being followed. In the first article, MakeSense64 and I were somewhat adversaries, with him or her wanting to delete & trim, and with me wanting to reference and expand (I got Houlding to send me a picture which I put in the infobox). We battled. But we both played by the rules. And that's what's important here. We will not always get our way. That's life. About pseudoscience -- I bet there are numerous reliable sources which identify astrology with pseudoscience. But I agree with William M. Connolley that this is a "long rambling discussion which is going nowhere."Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As you anticipated, William M. Connolley, I have uncollapsed your bold collapse. However, before your comments, I had a chance to reflect on this. I didn't come to Wikipedia to restrict other users. This was never about my biography and I have no objection if you put it up for deletion. I should never have questioned MakeSense64's COI, but I stand by my other comments. The bottom-line is that it was not about adhering to the letter of Wikipedia rules, but about following the spirit of the rules and principles and accepting consensus. I have seen more constructive edits from MakeSense64 recently and if this is an indication of the future, I am happy not to take this any further. I want to thank everyone for their contribution, especially administrator, Atama, who showed insight into the issues and Zac. Robert Currey talk 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where you have seen my more constructive edits, since I have hardly had time to do anything in the recent days.
    I think the problem was that you , and some other editors, didn't know the difference between bold editing and disruptive editing.
    I have pointed you to WP:BRD before. Bold editing and reverting are not by definition 'disruptive', they can actually be very constructive. I never had the impression that that point was taken on board.
    What is considered 'disruptive' is reverting an edit and then not properly engage in discussion, avoid questions , and so on.. Because that suggests editor is not willing to find concensus based on WP guidelines.
    Anyway, I haven't seen you bring any example of what somebody referred to as 'destructive tagging'. And it was you who brought up your biography in your complaint, not me. Since you now suggest yourself that your article may be one for deletion, then isn't it clear that in my tagging it for 'primary sources' I was being rather mild and giving it a chance to be brought up to WP standards.
    True, the subject of an article is not supposed to work on his own article for COI concerns, but it is allowed (even welcomed) for subject to bring suggestions and sources to the Talk page, where other independent editors can then decide to use it or not. So why didn't you try to help your article on the Talk page? Maybe because there are no independent quality sources to warrant an article? In that case you can ask an admin to remove your article, no need to wait for somebody else to nominate it. You are talking about following the rules and the spirit of WP, don't you? So, here is a great chance to show you mean it.
    Admin Atama describes my actions as "a lof of good but some bad" on his User_talk, so you realize that your complaint was without merit. Editors, and even admins are also not supposed to be perfect.
    Before we move on from this I have a few other questions for you, I think relevant in the context of working in rules and spirit of WP.
    Taking some clues from your facebook article I came across this: http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/bbc/petition.pdf
    It looks like (mainly) British astrologers are involved in a rather emotional campaign against media like BBC, Guardian .. to demand for apologies and (in their eyes) 'more fair' coverage of astrology. Is that correct?
    Given the description in your facebook article, how WP is the prime source of information for a lot of media and journalists... I am connecting some dots:
    * Could it be that passionate astrologers are trying to change the WP coverage of astrology, in order to change the media coverage?
    * Could it be that the influx of astrologer WP editors in March was directly related to this campaign and petition?
    * How many people responded to your call for 'Help' and to your tips, and are now quietly correcting typos and other innocent tasks on WP, to prepare for "working" on pages like Astrology and History of astrology?
    I also noticed commotion around the astrology of Ophiuchus in that petition article. Our friend Zac has not only been very busy trying to remove any reference to 'divination' or 'pseudoscience' on the Astrology page, he also nominated Ophiuchus (astrology) for AfD, while adding large chunks of astrology about it on Ophiuchus and Zodiac. And, even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was decided a Keep he went on insisting that the astrology should stay in the astronomy page Ophiuchus as well, giving this reason: the media and the public needs to know.
    Why does his editing on WP reflect the agenda of that AA petition campaign so closely? With you and other editors coming in when it is convenient? Consistently reverting edits that do not suit this campaign agenda? Why did these editors get active on the articles about British astrologers I had tagged, but not on the others? Coincidence, or connections?
    I hope you agree with the WP policies about advocacy: WP:ADVOCACY. So, "the public needs to know this" doesn't cook here.
    We also know that WP is not a place for "righting great wrongs" WP: GREATWRONGS, but that's what that petition and your facebook article sound like.
    Any comments on this?
    I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING, but why didn't you invite the admin who handled the problems in March to have a look at this? He has experience with the problems on astrology pages, and you are here to work fairly according the WP rules and spirit, don't you? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear! MakeSense64 – why didn’t you have the grace to accept my proposal to close this down yesterday? It seems that I was wrong to expect you to work with me to build bridges. Clearly you mean to continue exactly as before, by repeating the same points and dragging them out ad infinitum. You are showing everyone here how you have made the life of other editors so exasperating. Almost, every point you have made has been dealt already in this lengthy post and you are still trying to mine and make something out of harmless stuff about my life outside Wikipedia. There is no a conspiracy out to get you or anyone else. People come to Wikipedia for lots of reasons and I have since made a point of not going into why you are here. Your example: the question of the removal of the Ophiuchus (astrology) page is a case where Zac proposed that the page be removed, you and I both argued to keep it!
    I believe that you still don’t get it! – This was never about content nor my biography. I proposed that my bio was put up for deletion to make it clear that it was not an issue – not because the 10 references which you suggest are not good enough for a puny 4 line bio or that it is an advert which it clearly isn’t. I didn’t argue on the Talk Page on my bio because I did not feel it was my place to provide links to support my TV and radio work as this might be considered self-promotion.
    Already, your supporter William Connelly, who is evidently well known here, has said “This is turning into yet another long rambling discussion which is going nowhere.” I think he is right. You are wasting everyone’s time and I believe you fully intend to continue to do that every day.
    Now that you have re-opened your case, I request that an administrator makes a swift decision on my initial request. Robert Currey talk 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention

    Hi. I have a very simple issue to raise. The Senkaku Islands page was subject to mediation until recently. In order to satisfy a user, Lvhis, other users agreed that a neutrality dispute tag could be added to the top of the article during mediation. Mediation expired, so I requested the mediation admin, Feezo, (who had added the tag) to remove it. Lvhis was unhappy about this, so he asked Penwhale to remove reinsert it. Penwhale did this, despite acknowledging there might be a conflict of interest. He had also reinserted the same tag about a month ago during mediation, even though Feezo had removed it. I really don't think Penwhale was uninvolved nearly enough to intervene again on this issue.

    I'm also concerned how it looks for a Chinese user to ask a ChineseTaiwanese admin to intervene in a dispute over an article on islands that China and Taiwan are in sovereignty dispute with another country over. I'm sure Penwhale was acting out of good faith, but Wikipedia should be seen to be impartial, especially from the perspective of other users (given the sorts of disputes that can blow up).

    Anyway, would appreciate some feedback and maybe the removal of the dispute tag for the moment. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: John Smith's statement, "In order to satisfy a user, Lvhis, other users agreed that a neutrality dispute tag could be added to the top of the article during mediation.". There has never been any such agreement from me and some other editors; the tag was applied according to the usage guideline and without any pre-condition. STSC (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about how you're using "COI" here. The conflict of interest guideline speaks about citing yourself, promoting your own company or financial interests, or editing articles related to organizations or campaigns you are involved in outside of Wikipedia. In what way does Penwhale have a COI? Are you saying that because he was born in Taiwan, that he should not edit China-related articles? Or that he should be considered an involved administrator on those topics simply because of his ethnicity? Quigley (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Penwhale was the person who raised COI when actually discussing why he was taking action. Maybe he was thinking along the lines that you've described, but in any event I've struck-through the term. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we seriously having a real conflict over who has the right to remove a cleanup tag, where both parties agree that the tag should be removed? Because when I read this, you seem to be upset not because the tag was removed, but that it was removed by someone asked by your opponent to remove it, and not by the person you asked to remove it? Please tell me you didn't come here with that as the central conflict here. This is beyond stupid, into the realm of sheer insanity, if in fact you went through the trouble to complain about who has the right to remove a cleanup tag that everyone agrees should be removed. Please tell me I am wrong... --Jayron32 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have completely misunderstood the issue because I used the wrong word. The inclusion of the tag was a subject of an edit war. Editors who didn't agree with the tag's inclusion generally accepted that it could be included during mediation to satisfy Lvhis, as a sign of good faith. It was removed after the mediation ended. Lvhis wasn't happy, so he cherrypicked an admin that previously reinserted it, asking the tag to be put back. The tag was put back. Hope it's clearer now! John Smith's (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If all that is of issue here is that the admin is Taiwanese, then there is indeed a serious problem here, however that problem is user:John Smith's. Preface it however you want, but that you would even see this as an issue and bring it up is somewhat appalling. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I disagree strongly. I think it's incredibly improper for people of particular groups to even be seen to be taking sides over issues like this. I'm certainly not suggesting that Penwhale never get involved in any article related to this sort of matter. (And apologies for describing him as Chinese, though the point is still valid as Taiwan is more or less on China's side in this dispute). But the matter has already been characterised by people on both sides of the argument as being "pro-China" and "pro-Japan". In a similar fashion, if I was Japanese I wouldn't have sought feedback from a Japanese admin over this. Or, if I'd been a Japanese admin, I would have asked whether the editor in question really thought that I was the best person to deal with this.
    That said, if it was just down to ethnicity I wouldn't have thought much about it. But when added with the cherrypicking and previous intervention, I thought something should be said. John Smith's (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And to make another example, I don't think that it would be correct for an editor that was (noticeably) Christian to seek assistance from another (openly) Christian admin over a dispute at, say, the Jesus or Christianity articles. John Smith's (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    John Smith's, your using the word "removed" in above are really confusing. If you want to argue against adding the tag, you should argue on my two main points in my edit requested. You'd better to read the wp guideline Wikipedia:POV Cleanup#Guidelines for cleanup at least 3 times or more before you made such complaint again and again. Admin Penwhale just did a thing 100% in line with wp policy and guidelines, nothing with COI at all! --Lvhis (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You cherrypicked an editor who had previously reinserted the tag. You didn't wait for, or seek assistance from, an uninvolved editor. That was inappropriate. John Smith's (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I don't think you can rely on a page that has only been edited 14 times and has not been edited since 2007. John Smith's (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are playing down or even trying to deny a wp guideline or policy that you feel you cannot be benefited from, you shall not use (actually misuse or abuse) any others to make your complaint here at all. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who says it's policy? It's a page some random editor started in 2005. And the lead is completely nonsensical. "There are pages sitting in Point of View (POV) Dispute state where the discussion ended and it was resolved months ago. We clean up those tags." What does this mean? John Smith's (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very badly written, indeed, but aren't you being a bit disingenuous in saying you don't understand the intended meaning? It seems perfectly clear to me, despite the poor writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I was exaggerating. Though I have no idea who "we" are. Was this supposed to be a page about the removal of stale tags? John Smith's (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that we're having this conversation means that there's still a dispute. As I was not a party to the mediation case, I cannot tell how many people were on each side of the viewpoints. However, we're warring over a template that fits the current state of discussion. Have we resolved anything? If you take a look at the edit history, I've added the tag twice; once due to Feebo delayed his closure on RfM, and once after the RfM closure due to the situation not cleared up at all. I claimed possible COI issues for myself because this is related to Republic of China political issues and my view may not be as neutral as I could on other cases.
    • What I'd like to see happen to this article? Constructive discussion on what to do with the title, while title-NPOV is tagged (to reflect the ongoing discussion), and unlock the page provided that no parties edit the infoboxes/title disputed information without detailed discussion. That would be what I'd like to see the editors collaborate on. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (revised at 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    So how long do we have to use the tag? We have discussed possible pages moves many, many times. Each time there was no consensus to change the title. However, some users don't like the fact that the titles are staying the way they are and are using the tag as a sort of protest. As far as I can see, they will want the tag to stay up there indefinitely - or until other users give in out of boredom. That is not what the tags are for. John Smith's (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Penwhale: We've had discussion (I'm not sure that it qualifies as "constructive", but at least some of us have tried) about what to do with the article. We've had it on that article's talk page, on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, on WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), and, most notably, a MedCom mediation that ended (failed may be a better word) after it, well, completely fell apart. I don't have an answer to the problem (I'm one of the key disputants), but the problem is by no means caused by lack of discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Penwhale: Please answer my question. Who do you think in the world in general do not like the name Senkaku and think it a biased name? Oda Mari (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the best examples I will provide here, but both Google Maps and CNN articles (Google Search Keyword used: "CNN Senkaku Islands") have mentioned both the Japanese name and the Chinese name right near each other. Here's a good example on how CNN deals with it. Both names would be biased based on which view you take, for the record. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Penwhale: I asked you "Who". "Both names would be biased based on which view you take"? Who on this planet take the Chinese view and think the name Senkaku biased? Please give me a specific answer. People in Africa? I think they are indifferent to the name. I take the Japanese view, but I don't think those names are biased. They are just two geographical names to me.
    That's not really relevant. No one is suggesting the article only refer to "Senkaku Islands". The alternative names are mentioned in the article. It is not biased to have a name used by one country in a territorial dispute for the title of a Wikipedia article. E.g. "Falkland Islands", rather than "Falkland/Malvinas Islands". Or are you going to tell me "Falkland Islands" is biased too? John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that CNN and Google, two of the prominent media groups in the world, refers to both at the same time, without using the phrase Pinnacle Islands. This is almost similar to Liancourt Rocks situation, except the usage of the phrase "Pinnacle Islands" is much smaller than "Liancourt Rocks". NPOV name would force a move to "Pinnacle Islands", as both "Diaoyu(tai)" and "Senkaku Islands" have bias. But then the term "Pinnacle Islands" is underused... I personally don't have a preference over which one this article (and the dispute article) settles at, but I believe the tag should stay until a final consensus is reached (i.e. as mediation didn't resolve in agreement by parties, the name's NPOV-ness is still under dispute).
    In addition, CNN has actually refrained to name the islands in its article titles (only mentioning both in the article text). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to highlight a few important things: John Smith and cohorts' arguments of common name usage were defeated quite soundly in the recent (failed) mediation, so that already robbed a pretty key point on their side. In addition, the mediation failed because of active sabotage committed by individuals who very passionately advocated for the removal of the POV tag. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we have to have an article title that identifies the islands by name. News outlets can create their own headlines. And I don't understand why "Senkaku" is biased such that it cannot be used. Are you suggesting that "Falklands" is similarly biased and it would be legitimate to NPOV tag the article title until a name not used by the UK or Argentina could be found? John Smith's (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we should not go off on a tangent here. This ANI is about Penwhale's alleged COI and inappropriate actions taken as an admin due to him being Chinese. Content discussions about naming had been discussed in great detail in the mediation and other previous discussions, including why Falkland Islands is obviously a very bad example and an inappropriate analogy. If further debate is desired on why Senkaku Islands is a bad name of the article, then a separate thread should be opened in the appropriate article talk pages. Please stick to the original points of discussion. In the event that you can no longer justify your accusations of Penwhale, it is advised that you apologize to the Taiwanese admin for the inappropriate initiation of an ANI. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that I know if I'm on topic or not - I brought this matter to the board in the first place. I did not say at any point that it was inappropriate of Penwhale to act because he's Chinese, I made a subsidiary point that it could be undesirable to see a Chinese user seek help from a Chinese (got that slightly wrong) admin over a territorial issue that China was involved in.
    Penwhale has said quite clearly that he thinks it's POV to have "Senkaku Islands" as the title. It would help if he explains why it's POV. I raised the issue of "Falkland Islands" as an example for him to consider. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then consider this: using the name Senkaku Islands, by itself, could make English Wikipedia seen as taking Japanese views on this topic. That, by itself, would mean that we're not following WP:NPOV in the title. (Consider a Japanese party wanted Google to remove Diaoyu Islands from Google Map some time last year, we editors picking one over the other is definitely NPOV.) Technically, Republic of China also has a claim on the islands (for the record). I would not comment on Falklands issue due to the fact that I have very little (read: none) knowledge regarding that dispute for me to present a suitable analogy in that regard. I am using Liancourt Rocks as an analogy, and ideally, we would pick a title that can be agreed upon that would not advance just one side of the views. True, people wouldn't like it (the English name definitely wouldn't be as common as either Diaoyu or Senkaku), but at least we would have maintained neutrality. We are not sacrificing accuracy by doing so, either. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want true neutrality on a topic that is controversial in any way, Penwhale, you'd need a blank article (or no article at all). As soon as text is included or excluded, people will start to accuse Wikipedia of bias. These allegations are unavoidable. The NPOV article is clear on naming articles. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. I know that you are referring to Liancourt Rocks, but personally I don't agree with that approach. But in any event, there is no reason that we have to follow that decision. It is not Wikipedia policy to avoid using any name commonly used by one side in a dispute, and if anything policy says that it is permissible. John Smith's (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is off-tangent. The ANI is about whether or not Penwhale had done something in violation of his responsibilities as an administrator. Whatever issues you guys have with NPOV or Liancourt Rocks is irrelevant. Penwhale has very specifically addressed why he re-added the POV-tag, which is due to the fact that the dispute not being resolved by mediation (which was, in fact, forced to an unsatisfactory closure by parties opposing the POV-tag). What was relevant but not discussed, however, was that the tag was inappropriately removed by the administrator User:Feezo who was the mediator of the failed mediation.
    • Just to remind everyone what this ANI was about, let me re-quote a key part the complaint by John Smith's that started all of this:
    • Penwhale [re-added the POV tag], despite acknowledging there might be a conflict of interest. He had also reinserted the same tag about a month ago during mediation, even though Feezo had removed it. I really don't think Penwhale was uninvolved nearly enough to intervene again on this issue.
    • I'm also concerned how it looks for a Chinese user to ask a ChineseTaiwanese admin to intervene in a dispute over an article on islands that China and Taiwan are in sovereignty dispute with another country over
    --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]



    Sanctions

    Related to the above, earlier today User:Magog the Ogre unprotected Senkaku Islands dispute, which had been fully protected, on and off, for quite a while (due primarily to the NPOV Title tag, but also due to other disputes). In explaining the removal of protection, Magog placed the article under what are essentially self-imposed general sanctions. You can see an explanation for his position at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#BRD cycle, crystal clear. While I'm not usually a fan of "rogue" admin actions, in this case I support the decision fully. The disputes at these articles are painful, seemingly neverending, with lots of bad behavior on all sides. The biggest point of contention is the title, but there's plenty of other problems lurking in the corners if and when we ever get the main one taken care of. As someone fully involved in the dispute, I'd like to say that I concur with Magog's actions; as such, since we're here at ANI anyway, I'm wondering if we could get the community. I think that we might as well make the sanctions official, get them listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, and that way nobody can claim that, when an admin acts in the best interests of the encyclopedia and puts the beatdown on bad behavior that it wasn't fair. Alternatively, if the community doesn't want to deal with it, we could always consider kicking the issue up to ArbCom. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "I'm wondering if we could get the community." - seems as if you didn't quite finish this sentence, get the community to what? Chaosdruid (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have much problem of Magog's suggestions, but I cannot agree to the inclusion of the dispute tag forever. There has to be a time-limit on its inclusion or some other way of allowing for it to be removed down the line, apart from "consensus". The sad reality is that certain users will never agree for the tag to be removed until they get their way. John Smith's (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! I think I meant to say, "I'm wondering if we could get the community to give its input." Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; I support community sanctions on this article, including a 1RR limit and a strict line against BRD, as I've explained there. And John, I understand your desire to not have the NPOV tag up forever, but apparently other people feel just as strongly the opposite way, and the utter lack of ability on the two sides to come to even the slightest agreement on the issue is disturbing. I might point out they would rightfully say you will never agree for the tag to stay until you get your way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They could say that, but it wouldn't make any sense. My position is that it is inappropriate to use the tag indefinitely regarding the article title. This would be the same if the article title was "Diaoyu Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands". I am not refusing to have the tag until X happens. I simply don't believe the tag should be included. John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My British friend, I hope you realize that the recent attempt at mediation failed largely because of sabotage committed by editors who were on your side of the opinion spectrum. As a result, you should take your issue up with Tenmei and Phoenix7777 if you are wondering why the tag is still up there. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncertain as to whether ArbCom would actually rule on the actual name of the Senkaku Islands article to be used, as generally that would be seen as editing dispute. In addition, the long-term full protection on there means that there may be very little remedies actionable things that can be ruled upon. I'd think that the main thing that would come out of this would be remedies either imposed by the community- or ArbCom on related pages. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC), modified 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate and apprize admin Magog the Ogre for his decisive action of this kind at this moment very much, more than just saying support it. I'd like to say it would be better if such action had taken earlier. As for the dispute itself, even I am on one side but I can say I am quite open, not only including open for either of dual name D/S or S/D, or pure/real English name, but also including let the tag be on if there is dispute even the title can be moved into a one which I support as NPOV . I am not going to take advantage of status quo by stubbornly removing out such tag when the title is the one I support but the dispute has been raised and ongoing. Admin 日本穣 mentioned Liancourt Rocks dispute in his message there, that remind me the moment when the mediation started going to a deadlock. When I mentioned the precedent Liancourt Rocks which has been demonstrated as an example in the the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, Qwyrxian expressed "Please drop it" and then actually shut a door or way as a possible solving approach. I am not critisizing anyone here, instead, I just hope we should be more open in the future DR no matter it will be through AbrCom or the extensive community. Otherwise, I am not optimistic for any means to solve this kind of dispute. --Lvhis (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I remember seeing one particular post made by John Smith's in Senkaku Islands dispute...

    I have not accepted the tag. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I would like to see a commitment from people like Lvhis and everyone else who has reinserted the tag that they will accept its removal after mediation. If that does not happen then I would want the tag removed. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    ... which suggested he would permit the POV-tag to be left on as long as others accepted its removal after mediation (i.e. presumably, ended with satisfactory resolution of disagreements). However, what made this interesting is that his cohorts (who had closely collaborated with him) proceeded to force an unsatisfactory end not very long after the mediation had started (by savagely attacking the mediator and flatly refusing to cooperate). Since the disagreements were effectively unresolved for reasons due to inappropriate actions taken by opponents (rather than proponents) of the POV-tag, it does seem strange that John Smith's is still adamant about the immediate removal of the POV-tag.

    This ANI he opened on Penwhale and subsequent attack on Penwhale's objectivity as an administrator (purely on the basis of racial background) does further cast deep shadows on John Smith's motivations and interests in the article. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I appreciate your concern about this. I will point out that on my user page, I have the words I was born in Taipei City, Taiwan, therefore I do engage myself in PRC/Taiwan political issue discussions occasionally on it for quite a while. As this topic clearly deals with political issues (namely administrative rights of lands), people could find me having a biased opinion while editing. I brought it up when I wasn't prompted to do so, and the only actions I've taken on either SI or SI dispute articles was to re-insert the tag, which is clear that the neutrality of the title is disputed by not just me. I could be faulted for re-inserting a tag while the page was full-protected, but otherwise I've tried to remain neutral in this dispute. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did the right thing, because the motivations behind the removal of the POV-tag were actually inappropriate. You do not even need to cite naming conventions or NPOV to justify your actions in this case. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    London School of Economics

    We're having a minor edit war on London School of Economics and Kingston University. I don't know how to proceed because my sourced edits are being reverted because another editor doesn't like me. If someone could weigh in I'd be grateful. It almost seems like he'll keep reverting even if he has no real reason to. BETA 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything beyond a content dispute here - AN/I is for issues that require administrator intervention. If you have a dispute that cannot be resolved easily on the talk page of the article, take a look at the other steps in the dispute resolution process. Looking at some of the edits involved, I also kind of have the feeling that a wp:boomerang may be involved here pretty soon... Kevin (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to report this here, but see that I've been beaten to it. BETA, who has been heavily involved in a contentious dispute over our Kingston University article, and stated on the talk page that he "believe[s] that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk" [21], has chosen to add a new section to our article on the London School of Economics, where he writes: "London School of Economics' Academic Board has voted for a self-imposed maximum of ₤8000 per year in tuition fees per course. The regulation is applicable to all courses. The school's Council Will firm up the final figures on a course by course basis, provided they fall withing this ruling. School President Charlotte Gerada stated that she is both "grateful and proud", considering their rank in the top 5th of universities in UK. Other UK universities, including Kingston University, have decided to opt for the maximium". [22] Note also the misleading edit summary "new section, looking to nominate for good article". As the article history shows [23] after I removed the gratuitous reference to Kingston University, he has reverted it. I had made clear to him that this will lead to the matter being reported here.
    Given his stated POV, and his disregard for the integrity of other articles, I consider at minimum a topic ban on any matters concerning British universities is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And when he mentions this POV problem, I promptly reassure him that my edits reflect the sources(though my most recent one had a minor accidental misinterpretation that was quickly corrected), my admitted bias about one particular university, created by the information I looked up for my contribution to the article, isn't relevant to my sourced edits. BETA 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about WP:Boomerang. I mean this has been going on for a while on Kingston University before I even got to it. I might have gotten a little frustrated, I don't know. :0) BETA 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You add a couple of contributions and both of them are ripped to shreds, over minor things, it's bound to make you a little upset right?BETA 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your definition of "minor" isn't really in line with popular opinion. Even so, that doesn't excuse trying to make a point by going to another article and take the fight there. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I were making a point, Notpointy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it". Showing readers a contextual distinction is not disruptive. BETA 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A "contextual distinction" between what and what? You edited the LSE article to assert your POV regarding KU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me how my edit slanted the point of view of the article. I didn't say anything that was more positive or negative than the sources I supplied, despite the misunderstanding about the final decision. BETA —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Did you edit the LSE article (a) because you were "looking to nominate for good article" as you claimed in the edit summary, or (b) so as to include an off-topic comment about KU? Given your recent editing history, and your self-proclaimed low opinion of KU, it seems hard to believe the former. Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page, or to find some other way to make a general point about fees without naming one specific university? I think you are stretching credulity beyond reasonable grounds here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page" - again, double standard, isn't it the "logical response" before removing something to discuss it on the talk page. WP:NPOVFAQ:"Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." BETA 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BRD. You haven't answered the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to say that Essay trumps policy? BETA 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing trumps anything. The two most important principles you can have for how to behave at Wikipedia are WP:UCS and WP:DBAD. Other policies, guidelines, and essays only exist for people who lack the ability to obey those principles. --Jayron32 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (OD) Wikilawyering isn't going to help, BTA. Taking a failed argument from one article to another unrelated one is pretty clearly a violation of WP:POINT. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT is mostly about attempts to sway consensus, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. --BETA 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you aren't going to tell us why you decided to edit the LSE article to include a gratuitous comment about Kingston University? I can't see any point in discussing this further then. You are clearly more concerned with pushing your personal agenda than with contributing towards Wikipedia, and as such, I'd suggest that maybe you would best direct your efforts elsewhere. If you continue in this vein, you may soon have no choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)What ever you think your motives were, they look and feel like an attempt to bring your issues about KU (which is under full protection atm) to an article you could edit, you may think that was not to prove a point, others (including me BTW) think it was. As others have already made clear to you both here and at your talk page, if you carry on in this way you are likely to attract a block or topic ban.
    (edit conflict)If you want some advice, before you make any changes to university articles think, is, or could this be, a contentious change and if the answer is "Yes" post a note on the Talk page and leave it 48hrs to see what others think. This is after all a collaborative encyclopaedia and not a web based university guide or review forum. Oh and least you are in doubt any edit involving either "fees" or, in your case, given your comments, "Kingston University" is going to fall into the category of "a contentious change". Mtking (edits) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Edits related to Kingston University" would be plenty for me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Edits related in any way to Kingston University" might be better, given BETA's predilection for nit-picking over semantics. I did however suggest a ban on edits related to British universities in general: my thinking was that if he has a strong POV on one, he is unlikely to be neutral regarding others, and a general ban is easier to define. Still if the ban is confined to KU, and enforced, it'll probably do the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Ben has been problematic in a number of places since he recently became active again, in particular he enjoys playing semantic games with people, pushing the lawyer talk to absurd heights. At WP:COIN, for instance, he has made arguments like this one which raise the likelihood that his goal is to get under people's skin and cause disruption, not actually improve the encyclopedia. I wish I could believe that a topic ban from KU-related articles would resolve the issue, but I doubt that it will, I feel that this just happens to be where he's currently active, and a topic ban will just lead him to disrupt elsewhere. I considered the possibility that the account was compromised, as is often the case when an editor returns after a long absence to cause disruption, but then I saw this comment from 2008 (before his previous absence), so I think this is just how he has always been. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Topic Bans for Bentheadvocate and Cameron Scott. Such bans, absent threats or totally off-topic edits/vandalism generally should not be enacted, as this amounts to censorship, particularly when they are phrased so broadly as a ban on "anything related to" x.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would agree with Atama's analysis. The problem (to the extent that there is one) is not specific to Kingston University. I don't think he'd even heard of the place until he saw the kerfuffle and one of the editors being topic banned. His first appearance on Wikipedia was a very similar situation.

      1. User:Magnonimous had been edit warring at Coral calcium was eventually blocked indefinitely on 31 December 2007. [24]

      2. Bentheadvocate (BETA) registers new account one day later [25] and writes on his user page am not a new user, I have had some experience on wikipedia in the past. So don't be surprised if I seem to know more than I should.

      3. BETA then Proposes a new Wikiproject "CCE : Commission for Collaborative Editing" [26] (never enacted, no one signs up apart from him) but decides that Coral Calcium will be its first "case". [27] and sets about "advocating" for the blocked user's approach to the subject. Then appears to lose interest, moves on and stops editing altogether in May 2008.

      4. BETA returns three years later and heads for Samatha first as an IP [28] then as himself to edit war over external links with his previous antagonist at Coral calcium.

      5. BETA jumps in with both feet at Kingston University using similar tactics/arguments/alphabet soup to Coral calcium and Samatha kerfuffles.

      So no, topic bans are pretty pointless in the face of these kinds of shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Shenanigan #6. BETA starts and perpetuates an edit war at London School of Economics and then procedes to nominate for GA [29], despite one of the basic critera being "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Temporarily re-opening file. In reply. Yes, If I recall correctly I had been editing via IP at the time, until I came across the notice board's record of the controversial gang-up that occured on Coral Calcium, by proponents of now defrocked Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch fame. And while I don't agree with the victim's response to the antics, I nevertheless felt compelled to intervene based on the slanted state of the article at that time, and the injustice of it all. I realized that if I were to take this on I would have to establish myself as a regular fixture on this site, at which point I created my User status. And from time to time I do try to make sure that the quote unquote enforcers and deletionists don't overstep their bounds, at the expense of encyclopedic quality, and the dignity of other editors. Thank you. Resealing file; July 23rd 2011 --BETA 08:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? In what way has Stephen Barrett been "defrocked"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Registering relevant 3RR against Cameron Scott

    Since it pertains to this discussion, an assertion of 3RR violation has been made regarding edits to Kingston University, by User:Cameron Scott. Request that his vote be tagged as conflicted. Thank You. BETA 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Given that BETA posted the supposed (stale, and highly dubious) 3RR violation in response to Cameron Scott participating in this AN/I debate, I suggest that additional sanctions be taken against BETA for misusing the edit warring noticeboard. I think we've seen quite enough crap by now to tell that he isn't interested in Wikipedia, except as a place to push a POV, and to attack those who disagree. I think a block is now in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm choosing not to rise to the bait. Look at me I'm growing(a la chandler) :o] ...... p.s. This thread is pretty much done for me except for the 3RR. -BETA 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Warring

    User:TheTakeover is edit warring on several poker articles. I removed a spammy self-published source (poker-babes.com) from numerous poker articles and he reverted my edits. I changed them back and made a note on his talk page, asking him to discuss this before changing them back. He gave a very short reply and instantly changed them all back again, including multiple edits I made to one article (Shirley Rosario) which had nothing to do with this issue.

    A former employee of a cardroom is the author of 100% of the content on poker-babes.com and it is not a notable poker website other than the fact that it is used so heavily across Wikipedia. It is clear there has been an effort to include this source in as many Wikipedia articles as possible and this makes it meet my definition of spam.

    I request all links to this site be removed from Wikipedia and it be banned from being a reference in the future as it is spammy and a self-published source. I also ask that user:TheTakeover be warned about reverting edits in the future with no discussion. DegenFarang (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked first at Jennifer Leigh; to be fair, it was her account of her entry in the tournament, so I can't really question that. I also went to the home page and clicked a random article on Jennifer Tilly, and I learned some things I did not know about her from that article. Now, perhaps I'm biased as a poker player myself (been a while since I last played, mind), and maybe I am not looking at the quality of the site correctly (the style indeed does suck, even if the content doesn't), but I don't have an issue with this site if used appropriately in the right articles. It's not used as a reference, but as a See Also; IMO it could be a reference when information is added to an article that is on that site. What do others think? It is clear that if the contributor in question is the publisher of the site, she cannot add it to articles without a COI, however.
    (Degen, I changed your list of sites to a list and headed the topic post with them so it's clear what this post is about, and removed that paragraph putting your sig. at the end of the prior one. I hope you don't mind this change to your post.) CycloneGU (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you never notified TheTakeover of this thread. I have now done so. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it had been used in one or two articles I wouldn't have an issue with it either. But before I started removing links to it there were more than 200 instances of this completely random and obscure self published source being used as a reference and/or external link on practically every notable BLP for professional poker players and tons of articles about poker, across many languages of Wikipedia. That is clear evidence either Rosario herself or somebody connected to the site made a prolonged effort to spam the site into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. I don't think such blatant spamming should be rewarded and I think this site should be punished for this conduct. Add to that there is simply no reason this site should be used over so many better alternatives for things such as the rules or strategy of poker. Perhaps the Leigh and Rosario articles can stand, but all the rest should be removed. DegenFarang (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This of course not true and you know it, as anyone who uses the history function can see. Many editors added links to this site over the years, most by CryptoDerk, some by other admins. There are less than a dozen instances now; there never were 200. As for your assertion that Rosario somehow owns Pokerstars, really, get a grip. 2005 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it is not completely obvious to you, user2005 is the one who has been responsible for the vast majority of the 200+ links added to Wikipedia from this "source", the vast majority of which have already been removed. DegenFarang (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    False, as anyone who actually edits the Wikipedia can see if they check. There were never 200 (lol) links to this site, and the big majority were added by other editors, about 30 by CrytoDerk in 2004 or so when he used the site as the main source of the player articles he created then when BLP rules were different, and there are only about 10 links now, and at least five editors have readded the links and reverted your disruptive edits. Instead of your your edit war against the world, find something else to do. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That looks no better than a fansite to me and should not be used as a reference on BLP articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur. It's a subsite of pokerstars.com and appears to be 100% promotional. Based on the pervasity of the editing as described above, perhaps both URLs should be added to the blacklist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO (not an admin, just came accross this on my watchlist), this is a self-published source, but it's hardly spammy; no affiliate links etc. The problem with poker is that the few reliable sources out there are mostly magazines and poker room websites, both of which contain much more advertising and are more likely to have minor errors slip through. Although I agree that this is hardly a reliable source in the context of Leigh's or Rosario's wiki articles, I'd much rather trust someone from that site than a random CardPlayer magazine editor when it comes to rules or strategy of poker. AFAIK there are no PhD's being written about poker strategy or poker history yet so we'll have to settle for something. Rymatz (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are affiliate banners and links all over this site for pokerstars. Have another look. As for your opinion that a self published source is more reliable than CardPlayer, you are just wrong. They have the same profit motivation (advertising and affiliate links), but CardPlayer is run as a traditional media organization. This is like saying Glen Beck's blog is more reliable than the New York Times. DegenFarang (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one link to PokerStars in the bottom left corner and it is no more magnified than any of the other several dozen links on the page. Contrast that with e.g. CardPlayer main page where the first thing in the sidebar are affiliate links; thus I'm pretty sure non-intrusive advertising is not a big problem when it comes to determining reliable sources. Also, I'm not sure what viewpoint are you're trying to hold here: first you're trying to make this an advertising subsite of the world's biggest poker site (a site which BTW holds such a huge market share that it could be viewed as an authority on poker rules), and then you're saying that this is something a few non-notable poker players wrote on their own. Is this a PokerStars subsite or not? Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The site was bought by PokerStars and from the looks of it they haven't changed anything other than the advertising. And if you aren't seeing PokerStars banners and stuff you aren't clicking around on the site. CardPlayer is a much more reputable source than this site, there is absolutely no question of that. I don't even think user2005 who spammed this site all over wiikpedia would disagree with that. DegenFarang (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I was apparently using adblock, but what's the harm if we're using pokerstars.com itself as a WP:RS on many of these articles? Rymatz (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    PokerStars didn't write these articles, they were written by Shirley Rosario and PokerStars acquired the site along with several others and from the looks of it have made no changes to the site. Given that this random obscure site has been spammed hard on Wikipedia by user:2005, I think it should be blacklisted. Spamming should not be rewarded. DegenFarang (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was never spammed. A couple dozen editors have added it, including several admins, as edit histories show. They were added by a variety of editors including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and again and again and [30], as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them. You are making up nonsense just because I removed your factually untrue spam link two years ago. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The website in question owned by Pokerstars, the largest poker site in the world. The face of the site is an expert player who has won several poker tournaments in different game variations and has been quoted as an expert on poker in The New York Times, The Times of London, the Associated Press and other reliable sources. The links he is removing are unquestionably valid links, and they aren't even reverenceing anything controversial. For example, User:Rymatz added references to the Razz article saying how many cards each player gets in the game. In contrast, User:DegenFarang has a long history of tendetious editing. He has been reverted by at least five editors in the past few days. He previously has vandalized other articles in extremely tendetious ways where he makes nonsense claims against many editors. He has stated he will ignore any rule he wants. He has been give at least one, two, three, four "final warnings" to stop his disruptive behavior, and even a double final warning. He has called administrators incompetent... etc etc etc. Whether it is this issue, or a Supreme Justice, or any of several other issues which I am too tired to continue to list, he needs to finally be banned for disruption and blatant dishonesty. That is the issue. This user needs to finally banned and his IP blocked permanently. No more "final warnings". he is long past that. (Finally as his lie of "heavily" linked, the site he is attacking is linked in eleven articles in the wikipedia. he is fanatical about eleven links from a site owned by the billion dollar, industry-leading company. It's just incredible how he is allowed to continue to disrupt the work of multiple good faith editors. 2005 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like it meets the threshold of an reliable source to me. Self-published sources are allowed when the author is a recognized expert in the field.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, only two of the above articles are BLPs. One is the article about the face of the site, the other are articles written by the subject of a different article. Those are certainly valid ABOUTSELF links. The site is used as a refernce for game concepts, rules, stuff like that, not BLPs. Many editors have added links to the site because it is authority/player site for game stuff, but it is not being added now to BLP articles -- even though back in 2003-2004 when former admin User:CryptoDerk created the oringal poker player content in the Wikipedia he used this site for the basis of his articles because there was no other bio-type site online at the time. So again, the issue here isn not BLPs. The articles are too personal and subjective for that. The issue is that it is plainly obvious that it is an expert site that is a far better source than most for game basic practices and so on. (Actually the real issue is DegenFarang's long history of tendatious editing for which he has been warned over and over and over again.) 2005 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this page because I was wondering why a perfectly good reference on the "List of playing--card nicknames" was removed. While poker-babes.com might not be the most visually attractive site, it certainly seems like a valid source for a wide variety of poker information. Also, there are clearly multiple writers who have contributed to the site, not just Shirley Rosario. This is not spam but rather a valid and well-written source of poker information. Paige Barbeau (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't edit here that often and part of the reason is because of people like DegenFarang. Just a quick look at the PokerBabes site shows that 7 or 8 other people have written articles, and that the copyright is to PokerStars, the biggest online poker room there is. Reading the comments above, it's obvious this editor has been disruptive elsewhere too. I don't appreciate him saying that I am edit warring when I see at least four other editors have reverted him in the past three days. TheTakeover (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You repeatedly reverted my edits with no discussion including one article where I made 5+ edits, several of which had nothing to do with this source. That is the definition of edit warring. Next time discuss and reach consensus before overriding somebody else's work. DegenFarang (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense to anyone involved, but maybe a better way to approach this situation would have been to discuss the source on WP:POKER or WP:RS/N before engaging in an edit war and labelling the source as spam (which is something we don't all agree on) in edit summaries. Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "repeatedly" revert your edits. You removed about 20-25 links, and I undid only 9. And I even gave you the courtesy of replying to your post before editing them the second time. However, you got reverted by 2 other editors on the same links after that. Obviously, you are the only one that can't see that the site is a valid source of information. I looked up the writers for the site and they are professionals; ex prop-player who continues to work in the industry and has successfully played poker for 10+ years, a writing major who writes content for PokerStars, an online grinder who is highly respected on PocketFives and was the commentator for their radio broadcast, a poker businessman who has been everything from a prop-player to a casino manager. They obviously can be considered reliable sources. You are the only one who thinks differently. TheTakeover (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be willing to compromise and leave Jennifer Leigh and Shirley Rosario as they are with regard to this source along with the nicknames article, so long as it is removed from Omaha, Razz and Suited connectors and any other general poker article. That is information that can be found in every poker book ever written and on any reputable poker information website. There is no need to use this questionable, self-published, obscure, spammy source DegenFarang (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no point in compromising. It is either a reliable source for poker rules & strategy, for player biographies or both. Also leaving the page as a source at the pages of the two site owners is the last thing that makes sense to me with respect to WP:RS and WP:SPS. Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I had found them all, I found some more. DegenFarang (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that a ruling is not finalized yet. CycloneGU (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More tendatious, threatening, misrepresentations and factually incorrect editing from DegenFarang, even though now he's been reverted by at least five other editors. It would just be sad if every time he appeared he didn't waste many other editor's time. 2005 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Request for resolution/action - I started this to put an end to the edit war but it continues. Can somebody make a ruling on this site please? I think it is clear the site has been spammed aggressively across Wikipedia and it should be blacklisted. DegenFarang (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point some evidence (diffs) towards the site being "spammed aggressively"? Also you're the only one removing the references since this discussion started on WP:ANI (with exception of User:2005, who reverted your edits a couple of hours later because he wasn't yet informed of this discussion). No one has been adding new references since then as far as I can see. Rymatz (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The mere presence of the site in so many articles is evidence of aggressive spamming. This is not a well known or reputable poker resource. Much of the spamming was done long ago and over the last year or two I have personally removed well over 100 links to the site on many languages of Wikipedia. It was originally used as an external link on practically every notable professional poker player. I went through this process before to remove those and user:2005 finally gave up. Now I'd like to finish the job and remove what is left. DegenFarang (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing that is clear to me is that nobody considers the site spam except you. I spent the better part of yesterday morning reading through the site to see if I could see your side of the argument. The only thing I concluded is that the content is even BETTER than I originally thought and I already thought it was great. Although at first glance, it looks like all of the articles are written by one person, there are a wide variety of writers who are experts in the field. TheTakeover (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly not the only one. I was able to remove all of the external links because they were deemed questionable/spammy. DegenFarang (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a previous reliable source discussion on this where no one agreed with you. Everyone agrees it should not be used as a reference for people articles, which is why you could remove some links from bio articles. The ironic thing in your obsession that only you are right and the New York Times, Times of London and Associated Press are wrong is that in all your disruptive actions you have never once even said any information is wrong. Instead you make yourself look foolish by making up stuff that anyone can check in edit histories, and assert that all these other editor's opinions don't matter. We already know no matter what any admin says you do not believe you are bound by any rules of the Wikipedia. And you will just insult the intelligence of any admin who doesn't do exactly what you want. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I will weigh in here just to say that I find this site to be a reliable and trusted source for poker information. In fact, the glossary on this site is the most comprehensive and detailed dictionary of poker terms I've seen on the web. I just don't see how this site can be challenged here. Paige Barbeau (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by User:Camelbinky

    This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [35]

    "...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

    I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [36]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [37]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [38] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [39] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".
    I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.
    It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalking, or proper use of contribution history?

    If you have reason to think that someone will improperly tag non-free-use images for deletion, is it WP:Wikihounding to keep an eye on their contributions and remove improper speedy tags when the fair use conditions have been satisfied? Further, is it hounding when they tag a dozen files, but you only disagree with one, so that's the speedy tag you remove? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody has to know you're keeping an eye on their contributions if you do it quietly is my opinion. Juliancolton (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but what if they're so prolific that you're going to reverse one of their edits every few days? (And I don't always revert them -- if they're right, I'll delete the page myself.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely no problem whatsoever. I would say wikihounding is when someone is aware you're following them, and is made uncomfortable by it. Egg Centric 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the boundary when they're made uncomfortable, or when they're made "unjustifiably" uncomfortable? HOUND says "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." So, if you're protecting encyclopedic content, is that an overriding reason? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto the above. I'd only add that it would be worthwhile to leave a talk-page message. Makes it clear that you have concerns about their editing, and is probably less likely to frustrate another editor. It's also a bit of CYA, since if the other party complains to e.g. ANI, it's easier to redirect the complainant back to their talk page, where you initiated the conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dealing with someone else's fuck-ups cannot reasonably be construed as stalking. Jtrainor (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for not notifying me of this thread, Sarek. I would simply point out that in your case, you should be exceptionally careful when taking admin actions in relation to me (including declining speedy tags) and more generally when reverting or questioning my edits. In particular, if my tagging is so clearly inappropriate, the likelihood is that a more neutral admin will deal with the tags and will bring the matter to my attention. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting an edit is hardly an admin action to be fair. Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that. I said, "Admin actions (including declinging speedy tags) [new clause] and more generally when reverting..." ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put - If the editor in question is making questionable edits we should all be looking at him/her edits closely. If questionable edits are a problem then wider talk should take place. Moxy (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So make up your mind, TreasuryTag, am I allowed on your talkpage or not?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that it was required and not optional to notify editors when you are starting an ANI thread concerning them. However, perhaps I misread the instruction at the top of the page. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have it both ways. You're itching like the crabs to actually stir some shit up with another editor, and you're stirring unsuccessfully - you're looking pretty bad right now, IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, I don't see why it's so necessary to drag this discussion off-track, but since you seem not to understand my point: I do not want Sarek to post anything on my talkpage except compulsory notifications. That seems a fairly clear and simple (and obvious) principle to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the CSD tags are really that improper, then the reviewing admins will decline them, no? So why the necessity to even create the appearance of something drama-worthy? causa sui (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Causa sui speaks the truth. The answer is, if there is a prior history of conflict between you, Sarek, and TreasuryTag, you shouldn't be doing anything to his edits at all. There are hundreds of other admins who will happen upon things he tags, and if those tags are incorrect, they can deal with them. Wikipedia has a huge level of redundancy in this department, and if your involvement has any potential to cause drama, then you aren't personally needed for this task. Some one else will do it. My recommendation is that you, Sarek, take TreasuryTag off of your radar entirely, and don't bother looking through his contributions. Just pretend he doesn't exist. If he creates a problem, someone else will notice. --Jayron32 23:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. A voluntary total interaction ban (both ways) would be much appreciated, by me at least. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Causa sui and Jayron. We've several times had substantial discussions about an interaction ban; one of the arguments against was that Sarek has particular knowledge of TreasuryTag's behaviour and should be allowed to contribute to any necessary dispute resolution. Whatever the strength of that argument, it really does not apply to standard content issues. If there were not the history between these two that there is, Sarek's edits would probably be fine. But the history is very much there, and a lot of the issue with hounding is subjective. If Sarek's following TT's contributions in this way makes TT feel hounded, then Sarek should desist from making such routine interventions which many many other editors can make. Given the history, both parties should simply keep their interactions to the minimum necessary. And I have to say, it's slightly disappointing that Sarek has not previously reached this conclusion himself. Rd232 talk 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pfft, I felt hounded by Mr. Tag for a while until I decided that I would more or less have to act like a lunatic to get him to back off. I still can't shake off the feeling he's watching me, actually, but that may just be a bit of paranoia. So I would say to him if he feels like he's being scruitinised... tough. Egg Centric 00:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the interests of full disclosure, I certainly kept an eye on your activities for a week or two after your block for generally disruptive behaviour – and I daresay numerous other people did the same, including the admin who blocked you for instance. I continued this despite your personal attacks against me (unless your choice of those three 'hypothetical' articles was entirely coincidental). However, I can assure you that I stopped this weeks ago because you seem to be making a genuine attempt to be constructive at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 08:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declaration of war

    I consider the combination of three edit from ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Jack Kevorkian as a declaration of war against Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both users are nor friends, nor perfect guys. ClaudioSantos is a POV-pusher (blocklog) and sockpuppeteer (SPI), while Jabbsworth also has a sockpuppet history (SPI). But the three edits are way over the line: [40], [41], [42]. They followed on this (rather unhandy and/or rude) edit: [43].

    The problems on Jack Kevorkian are not the only ones. The battle is in fact going over all articles related to euthanasia. I have enough, and now request help. Night of the Big Wind talk 02:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken the liberty of notifying ClaudioSantos of this discussion. I note Jabbsworth's Talk page bears the sock-block banner, so I did not post the notification there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You were quicker then me, Mr. Ambassador! I have added my personal notification to it, and added a notification to the talkpage of "Jack Kevorkian". Night of the Big Wind talk 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also notify Jabbsworth. They are no longer blocked, and obviously could not be editing if they were. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You called it a declaration of war. And this mmessage from Jabbsworth to you, was tagged as a sort of declaration of love. And you NightOfTheBigWind also declared to be desperation your promised attempt to topic-ban me:[44]. And this was a declaration of help offered from Jabbsworth to achieve the desesperated topic'ban aganist me. But, at any rate for me it seems you are an involved party in this what you -not me- called a war.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it is in the interest of Wikipedia, I can do in my own workspace what I like to do. That it send shivers over your back is your problem, not mine. Night of the Big Wind talk 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, really, something must be done. I was indeed a sockpuppet, but only to escape the wikistalkers who have gone so far in opposing my edits that they have made webpages about me on the internet. Serious stuff. So when I am called a sockpuppet, yes guilty, but only to protect myself, because my personal details were linked to my accounts outside wikipedia by seriously hostile editors, with corporate funding. (They got my identity wrong, but the fact that they are trying to name me is worrying). I should have kept an admin informed of my different accounts, that was my chief sin, and this happened because I was not aware of that policy. Anyway, back to the topic, user ClaudioSantos (who used to sockpuppet as PepitoPerez2007) — this editor is a major problem in the euthanasia-related areas of WP. At one stage he carpet bombed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 with this statement, over and over: PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCITIVE KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA(sic) [45] [46] etc etc To see all his obsessively POV edits on this topic, you need to monitor his edits from 190.25.192.49, 190.25.98.59, 190.27.153.9 and innumerable other South American IPs. His thrust is to pillory euthanasia because of his personal religious convictions. He inserts the word "murder" onto every euthanasia-related page he can [47] [48] etc etc, changes a medical infobox on a biography page of a doctor to a criminal one (Kevorkian) against consensus, insists that the Nazi extermination of cripples in WW2 is the equivalent of modern-day euthanasia, and much, much more (it's a huge job to collate all the madness into one paragraph). In general, he usually sources his edits to obscure, foreign language sources, or self-published sources, and edit wars every change. If he has consensus against him, it makes absolutely no difference to him. His edits are in broken English and are usually ungrammatical (so why is he editing the English version of WP and not the Spanish version?). I call for an indefinite block or topic block on him, except I know he'll just go back to IP-hopping attacks. No idea how to proceed... Jabbsworth (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of all the ramifications, and anyway, this discussion is off-topic. Jabbsworth (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But user:Novagelis is precisely talking about the ramification you were aware. As user:Novangelis proved, you explicity said that you were aware that you have kept an admin informed of my different accounts, although now you are saying "that you were not aware of that policy". So you are lying. And this is not off-topic as it deals here also whith your warring behaviour and means. affected users with your 6 sockpuppeteers have the right to be heard and protected. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, your tenuous grasp of English —or is it simply poor reading comprehension?— has let you down. I specifically said that I was being wikistalked above, and even worse, stalked in real life, and so providing links "would defeat the purpose", as I stated in the linked comment. Please don't reply; I don't expect you to grasp this, nor do I care. Jabbsworth (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is User:ratel again and again referring to "my" religion, which he does not even know which is it? Although religious concerns and comments are not to be discriminated at all as User:Ratel suggests, at any rate I have no made any "religious" edits. Every edit I made was based on sources, reliable and verifiable. See for example the last edits I made on euthanasia based on historian Ian Dowbiggin who does compare modern euthanasia with nazi euthanasia version, so it is not POV as User:Ratel intended. By the way, it is interesting to mention that Ian Dowbiggin and also Jacob Appel at the Bulletin of The History of Medicine, referring on the history of the euthanasia movement in the 20th century, they have noticed that: most arguments against euthanasia was based on practical and not on religious or moral concerns[49]. And it is also interesting to mention that also for Dowbiggin and other authors it was clear that (anti)religious and (anti)moral arguments came mainly from pro-euthanasia movement. But here the thing is: User:Ratel used up to 6 known sockpuppets, affecting more than one user (thus not only me) and made a mess each time, and always triggered ANI cases against me because his agenda is pro-euthanasia and he uses any mean to delete anything defiling euthanasia. Perhaps NotBW has called it properly: declaration of war. And certainly euthanasia involves casualities. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You've made extensive edits on articles concerned with Catholics and Catholicism, so it's not rocket science to see where you are coming from.
    2. You are starting a content discussion here, but your lack of civility and co-operation in editing is at issue.
    3. Stop talking about sockpuppetry (yours or mine), it's not the issue here. Jabbsworth (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no made any edition at any article "concerned with catholics and catholicism", unless you are confessing that for you: euthanasia, nazi euthanasia program, eugenics, etc., are "catholic" issues and that your "science" consists in argue that anyone editing at those articles is catholic. Then, following your "scientific argument", as you are also editing extensively on those articles, therefore you are also catholic and also my coreligionist. No, I have not made any "religious edit", I have provided non'religious arguments and sources. But for me it seems you are trying to use the alleged "religious" tag in order to force your pro-euthanasia agenda. Perhaps like, as Ian Dowbiggin noticed, these anti-religious arguments were used by the earlier euthanasia movement to turn certain segments of the society favorable to the euthanasia agenda[50][51], although most of the arguments against euthanasia were not based on religious or moral but based on practical concerns[52]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, I remember now, you sourced some of your edits to religious sites/documents and you inserted the comments of religious functionaries into articles. That's where I got the religious angle. But you are continuing with a content discussion. How about you agree to abide by consensus in future and stop edit warring? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually I have experienced that you misunderstand or misuse consensus, by turning it into a sort of voting. Thus majority against minority, excluding any reasoning, excluding facts, excluding sources, but a "consensus" based merely on numbers (usually 2 users vs. 1 user). Of course, that is "consensus" for you only when numbers favour you and certainly that is not always the case. Certainly I remember that some minorities were crucified or burned for the strongest majority. A majority impossing their false ideology (such as "Earth does not move ") against the truth, but mainly imposing their status quo, by force of numbers; and that status quo was indeed what they had for consensus. Nevertheless, certainly I also have some strong particular doubts about your proposal. Let me cite here just one (1) example: WP claims that consensus is not voting not impossing 3 users against 1, but once you have said that my disagreemnt was only "flogging a dead horse to waste the time of you and the other users". And, as I said, that is just one example of your "civility" and "consensus". So, for me it seems you have never been dispossed to achieve any consensus, and your recent edits also testify this. What I have also realized is: you delete each statement defiling euthanasia wherever it is sourced, and you also use any mean to trigger and achieve blocks against those who edit sourced material against euthanasia, like the offer you did to NotBW to help him to achieve a topic ban against me. That sort fo stake is what you understand for "consensus"? You not only used 6 sockpuppets but you used all of them to do the same warring, therefore as it seems you loses temper, why do not you refrain yourself from editing these articles? That is my proposal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we're making some progress, because you are actually discussing editing behaviour. Is consensus voting? No, it's not, as I am well aware. But when you have 2 or 3 or 4 editors ranged against you, as is frequently the case (me, Night of the Big Wind, Bilby, admin Teadrinker, and many more over the years), it still does not stop you. Now, please explain why, when you are faced with numerous opposing editors, your response is to edit war, defile Talk pages, and make life extremely unpleasant? (I can provide many examples if required). Why can't you accept that your opinion and edits are being overruled, and move on? Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So again, numbers, years, that is your main answer. For the rest, certainly I am not defending the pleasure of death. Can not you fill of pleasure by editing other articles or do you feel so obsessed with death? Can not test another way? Change rather than eliminate? Of course, knowing to add and to subtract is not enough but too simply too boring too lethal. Yes, you did not answer my question. Qui tacet consentire videtur?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another example of your "consensus": there was an agreement from two editors,me and also user:Night of the Big Wind who usually agrees with you and disagrees with me. But you did not refrain from reverting the consented edition nor discussed nothing but just reverted. You are not dispossed to achieve consensus, you are still editing warring and you just want to force your agenda, which i do not why includes posting a lot of irrelevant and non-encyclopedic but promotional contents about EXIT international and its products such as Suicide bag, thus nothing else but a small bussiness of doctors earning money with euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope the sysops reading this are noting your broken, ungrammatical English, which alone should bar you from editing the English version of WP, but they should also note that I am restoring long-standing, sourced (for the most part) material to articles, recently removed by you, while I was blocked (while the cat's away, the mice will play) for reasons that have zero to do with improving the encyclopedia (you want to reduce opposing articles to stubs). There is nothing promotional involved. Exit International is well known all over the world ( see google news archives [53] ) Jabbsworth (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    Yes, I do not doubt that you should be an expert on punishment and grammar, as you were reprieved although you evaded 6 blocks by using 6 sokcpuppets and disrupted each time more than one user. For the rest, earning money from books about suicide bags and suicide things, that financial accounts prima facie. why do not you refrain from editing those articles?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (OD) Just out of curiousity, other than the two involved editors, is anyone else following this? Can any uninvolved editor decipher this wall of text to see if there's an action that can be taken? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Shh! Can't you see that there's a war out there? Doc talk 06:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kinda sad when one editor with a bee in his bonnet is allowed to go berserk in an important area of the project like death-related articles. We are all going to get old and die, some of us in a nasty, painful and slow way. When you get to that point in your life, think back on how you turned the head and did nothing while people were allowed to censor and distort articles about euthanasia on wikipedia, all to suit their own political or religious agendas. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody is dying right now. Certainly it seems that the one turning his head and not facing death, is the one who promotes to be completely sedated and unconscious when dying. The only one using (anti)religious whinnings are you Jabbsworth. why do not you refrain from editing those articles as you always lose your temper and censor anything against defiling euthanasia. Are you again repeating the modus operandi, as Ian Dowbiggin noticed, used by the earlier euthanasia movement to turn certain segments of the society favorable to the euthanasia agenda appealing to merely mark as "religious" the arguments against euthanasia[54][55], although most of the arguments against euthanasia were not based on religious or moral but based on practical concerns[56], while the (anti)religious and (anti)moral arguments were indeed used by the euthanasia movement. Of course they appealed also to financial and eugencis arguments. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should refrain from editing those articles. You evaded 6 times your block and were involved in editing warring with those sockpuppets precisely at those articles. You lose your temper each time. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You all owe me for wading through this frothing sea of emotion and turmoil. I'm retiring to bed after this post, and will deal with this fully in the morning; for now, a few things need to be said.
    For one, Jabbsworth, please note that one's linguistic prowess is not a factor. Barring complete non-speakers, we welcome any editor's contributions. Making a few typos here and there or not obeying proper sentence structure is something that should be overcome through teamwork, not pointed at as a game-changing flaw. Let's not raise a language barrier.
    Now, ClaudioSantos: I noticed that a few of your more-POV edits have been backed by sources, and you have used that fact as a reason to revert others. Please remember that, while sources should be considered, we still have to follow certain policies which forbid us from saying that people are murderers: unless somebody has been found, by the legally-binding law of a nation, to be a murderer, we cannot portray them as such, even if there are reliable, verifiable sources that say otherwise.
    In closing - let's keep the personal attacks and remarks on character off here. If you'd like, you may pretend that the brick wall next to you is your foe, and say nasty things to it; however, on Wikipedia, I'd like us to focus on content, not those creating it.
    I'll drop by your respective pages in the morning and work out a compromise from there. In the meantime, please do not engage in any disruptive activities: this includes making substantial changes to contested content, personal attacks, or more accusatory bickering. Your cooperation is appreciated, m.o.p 08:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Jack Kevorkian was convicted to prison because of murder. The mainstream media has reported it and his trial after CBS has broadcasted the murder on 60 minutes. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, he was not convicted for first degree murder. And secondly, he was already widely known for his work on assisted suicide before he finally (in his fourth trial) got convicted. Putting him down as an outright killer, something you tried to do many times, is not right. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted that Jack Kevorkian was also known for he was convicted to prison because he murdered a patient, he video-recorded the murder and sent it to 60min in order to be broadcasted as it was. And certainly all that was a very famous show widely covered by the main stream media[57][58][59][60]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is unfortunately the normal "discussion style" of ClaudioSantos. He tries to drown the issue under a load of words. This "war" between him and Jabbsworth have by now spread out to the talkpages of most arbitrators involved in Jabbsworth's unblock. This whole scheme is getting highly disruptive and annoying. I think that Wikipedia must be protected against ClaudioSantos by way of a (lengthy) block or, less far reaching, a topic ban. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    TL;DR. My 2p: it's a content dispute and needs to go through the usual dispute resolution process. Involved parties might do well to start at WP:DRN. Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos might also consider a voluntary interaction ban. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, but ClaudioSantos and (to a lesser degree) Jabbsworth are becoming increasingly personal-attackey on each other. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my recommendation for a voluntary interaction ban. As a sidenote, considering how contentious the topic matter is, I was mildly surprised to see it NOT listed at WP:GS. But that's a matter for another time. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the interests of the two editors, I'm not sure that an interaction ban without a topic ban would be effective - they both interact on the same topics, and don't seem to edit much outside of them. In regard to WP:GS, the articles are, I think, tricky enough to limit the number of editors who are involved, in spite of the controversial nature. Thus there hasn't been a huge tendency for problems to get out of hand, with some noted exceptions. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert: this sort of "lesser degree"? or this one?. whatever, instead of that, it should be more relevant to read the contents of this dispute: RfC: Removal of every trace of nazi euthanasia program from the euthanasia article -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have kept following the indication of the admin Master of Puppets who above expressively asked: do not engage in any disruptive activities: this includes making substantial changes to contested content, personal attacks, or more accusatory bickering. In Exit International article, I took a step aside, but not even NightoftheBigWind who usually agrees with his edits, not even him was able to avoid Jabbsworth editing warring and achieving 5 reverts. In the Euthanasia article, there is a lot of users involved in a discussion. There the majority and even users like Bilby who usually agrees with Jabbsworth edits, there the majority agreed to keep well referenced contents about AktionT4. Those contents are being hardly worked and referenced by me an by this user Bilby. But now Jabbsworth without any discuss, he has deleted a large amount of that contents referenced on the historian Dowbiggin, precisely because this historian remarked similarities and did academic and historic comparissons between the euthanasia movement and the nazi euthanasia. As usual Jabbsworth is deleting any thing against his pro-euthanasia agenda and I think he is trying to drive the thing to an edit war in order to force his POV. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    collpasing off-topic: Language barrier

    Language barrier

    Could any one of you relocate this interesting but off-topic discussion at any adequate place? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing about this little comedy that caught my eye was the "let's not raise a language barrier" comment. I have to admit that I'm a bit torn about this, but at the end of the day... there are separate language versions of Wikipedia for every major language, and many minor languages, now. That being the case, why shouldn't we raise a "language barrier"? Not a hard barrier, as in "you have to take this test before editing" or something, but... I mean, outside of minor cleanup and copy editing, why shouldn't we restrict the activity of those who have limited English writing skills? It's not as though we'd be excluding them from the project after all, we'd just be limiting their involvement where it may not be appropriate. I wouldn't dream of editing any other language Wikipedia (except possibly the French one, but I'd self-limit to very minor editing) myself for the rational that I've outlined here. I'm just thinking that it'd probably be a good thing to limit the activities of editors with limited English skills here on the English Wikipedia. This is a fairly... academic pursuit, after all. There's a certain level of skill that's needed to be an effective editor (which, admittedly, isn't that high... I'd say any middle-school level native English speaker more than meets our requirements). Food for thought (or argument, perhaps?)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 to that. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that if there is a "competence in language" expectation that a fair amount of English speakers (as a first language) may begin to feel unwelcome, and that expectation may then become a lever in content/conduct disputes. While it is inappropriate for others to continually correct an editors contributions, even after their lack of language skills has been extensively commented upon, it is also pretty much against the "anyone can edit" ethos to require a certain level of ability to write English. Those whose edits are consistently incomprehensible and are not willing to either forego article pages or attempt to improve their contributions might eventually be sanctioned as being disruptive - but only because of their refusal to resolve the issues with their editing rather than the edits themselves. In short, demanding a certain standard of English is a slippery path I do not think the project needs to go down. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yea, there's obviously a balancing act involved with all of this. I'm hardly proposing that we establish tests or anything like that, either. Actually... I'm not really sure what I'm proposing, to be honest. I'm aware of the problems that you're bringing up, but still... I think that we may be being a bit too egalitarian in this regard, I guess. As I said, "food for thought".
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, but English is not my first language either... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pointy AfDs

    Resolved
     – AfDs are closed, a trout might be in order for Peterstrempel.

    I'm of a mind to speedy close three AfDs raised by the same editor. These are for Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology and Horoscopic astrology. His reasons are the same for all three:

    • Being created to avoid known controversial debate (NPOV content fork) on the Astrology page where it has been asserted that no change can be made without considering all sub-pages (see Talk:Astrology#Sub-pages_to_avoid_disputes.3F).
    • Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
    • Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.

    All three were created in 2006 by the same editor and are clearly not NPOV forks. What the sandbox thing is I have no idea, and although all could use more references, that isn't a reason to delete these articles. This is tied in with the editor's statement he will be deleting all unreferenced material at History of astrology.

    Is there any reason I shouldn't speedy keep these three articles? These are clear WP:POINT nominations of articles which don't stand any chance of being deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dealt with Peter recently. While I admire his mission, I don't quite think that this is an issue for AfD - it's a content dispute. I'd support a speedy close. m.o.p 08:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too worried about the prospect of deletion since the lack of good reason will surely find insufficient support, but I am concerned about that editor's declared intention to take a razor to all unreferenced assertions on the Astrology main page, all of its linked articles, and the astrology portal page, for what he imagines is a lack of consensus towards my suggestion that the content sections of the main Astrology article should summarise and pull together the main points of daughter articles which elaborate those points in more detail. Contributing editors have shown their agreement by adopting that plan and working to attend to daughter articles as part of the development plan for the main article. The problems are being addressed but this is slow work which is being worked through systematically. It cannot be done properly under a climate of fear.
    The same editor's declaration on the talk:History of astrology page says:

    I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made.

    If he adheres to what he has stated, something similar is likely to be applied to those articles once they are preserved from deletion, and to many other astrology-related pages in the next few days. The motivation appears to be to end the existence of related articles, so that there is no reason to consider the content of their pages when arguing what he would rather have the main astrology page say.
    Such a situation will cause a lot of problems, by giving too much work to too few editors in too short a period of time. I have been helping to provide citations myself, but will be away over the next week, and this will be one of my last submissions to WP until I return. Whilst the editor is quoting WP verifiability policy, he is ignoring one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, that "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone ... The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule". I have frequently read the policy reminders that rules should be interpreted in the context of common sense.
    Is there anything to prevent an editor making very drastic wide-scale cuts following an unreasonably limited notice of intent? It has been put to him that he could take a more productive course of action by placing "citation needed" tags in the areas he feels that comments are unreliable or likley to be challenged; but this suggestion has been ignored in his call to have three major articles deleted instead. The value of those pages submitted for AfD does not appear to be of concern to him; and in this I believe that (whilst quoting policy) he is working against the spirit and aims of WP, rather than in support of them. Can admins here suggest a solution to avoiding the problems that are being generated by this editor's course of action? Zac Δ talk 09:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    AfDs closed

    I've closed the AfDs. I've told the editor who created them that wholesale removal of unsourced material, especially when it looks sourceable, may not be a good idea and that it could lead to a block. I've asked him to do some sourcing himself, something he doesn't seem to have attempted, and pointed out that there is a difference between articles on ancient history (or even modern history of astrology) and on the pseudoscience of astrology. I've put the Arbitration Committee rulings on pseudoscience on the talk page of Horoscopic astrology. And I'll note that History of Astrology is in fact being edited this month by others with concerns for sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I will try to help with that task too. Zac Δ talk 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, just to make sure I understand Dougweller here, as a spokesman for Wikipedia. Stated Wikipedia principles and rules about verifiability are in fact meaningless, because any content can be mounted without references, and cannot be removed? Yes or no? You can mount any old crap so long as someone somewhere will make a vague undertaking to finding some sources, possibly not for years after the unsourced articles are mounted? Yes or no? Wikipedia is happy to lend itself to myriad unreferenced assertions, put to the world as fact and knowledge? Yes or no?

    If the answer to all these questions is yes, I am happy to cease editing here, because Wikipedia has clearly become a blog rather than an encyclopaedia. That's fine, if that's what people here want. I didn't come here, though, to take votes on whether we can call some unverified content actually not needing to be verified. So, just say it explicitly for me: Wikipedia does not require content to be sourced? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, I'll be happy to leave and tell my colleagues that Wikipedias has changed its mission from being an encyclopaedia to something else. Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you know I'm not a spokesman for Wikipedia. You should also know that that is not what I am saying. For clarification so that others know what I wrote on your talk page before your response above, I said " I strongly uphold our policy on sourcing and I do delete unsourced material where I think it can't be sourced, is a BLP violation, etc. But I also spend a lot of time providing sources. In the case of the articles you are targeting some clearly are simply about ancient history while others are about astrology as a pseudoscience. I imagine that it would be possible to source most of the history articles. You're welcome to add a reasonable number of fact tags and I very much hope you will try to find sources. If you actually delete material that appears to be easily sourced that will be a different matter and this could lead to your being blocked, something I hope will not happen". How can I say it plainer? "I strongly uphold our policy on sourcing." This morning I've removed several unreliable sources from articles and added fact tags. Yesterday I added a number of sources to articles. You aren't adding sources at all. What I'm saying is:
    1. You should be adding sources before you complain about material being unsourced, particularly in the relevant articles which are on history and not pseudoscience and can be easily sourced. You might then have a leg to stand on. Take an article and clean it up, be an example of the way an editor should behave when faced with unsourced material.
    2. Your AfDs and your threats are not constructive and are a violation of WP:POINT. You need to read WP:RS again, it says, referring to our policy on verifiability "This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." You are threatening to delete material irrespective of whether it is "challenged or likely to be challenged". That coupled with your failure to actually add any sources isn't at all helpful. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Several Astrology pages have been seeing never-ending discussion lately. I have not been involved on the nominated articles or on History of astrology, but have seen what is happening on Talk:Astrology. I have seen Peter Strempel make several attempts to get the train back on the rails there, some of them drastic. But WP recommends bold editing as a possible way of breaking up deadlocks.
    I also see this notice on top of the Talk page: The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
    So the question then becomes : what is unciteable information ? How long are you going to search before you decide that a given sentence is unciteable? Giving a page a fresh start by removing big unreferenced chunks and then rebuild by adding properly sourced materials is often a far more effective use of time.
    If something can be easily sourced, then of course it doesn't need to be removed.
    But some of the passages may be just cites from memory, opinion or OR by some previous editor, and there may not be quality sources for it.
    If the debating editors have also not brought any 'easy sources', then is that not in itself an indication that a given passage is quite likely to be unciteable? Hence better remove and rebuild?
    To put 'citation needed' tags is easy, but more often than not these tags stay on forever and nobody cares. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When I see them if they are over a few months old I usually either source or delete. The problem here is the seven day notice on active articles and the failure of the editor involved to attempt any sourcing. I note that other editors have been actually working on the History of Archaeology article and the suggestion that one article at a time be worked on if there is a set of articles is sensible. Certainly the 7 day notice is unreasonable - and seven months would probably unreasonable as well. I can't emphasize enough that those who tag need to also be active at sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Talk:Militant atheism/July2011Razor for an example of how Peter carries out his "word razoring" — he describes his reasoning for the changes in depth on the main article talk page. His announced intent sounds much more radical than it is in reality and it seems to me to be a fairly reasonable approach. Mojoworker (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look

    Allegations of misconduct on Kurmi (an Indian caste)

    User:Sitush has broken the 3RR [61][62][63][64]. But I have an admin warning me about edit warring on my talk page User talk:MangoWong. The admin who warned me has also reverted my edit,[65] which was to put a cn tag in the infobox on a claim which has been disputed for long. I do not see why a cn tag is not needed in an infobox(as claimed by the admin who reverted me and warned me), and why the admin would see a necessity to revert a cn tag. Could I request some fresh eyes here. Please also take a look at talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected.-MangoWong (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As explained in the edit summary, a citation is not needed in an infobox or lead if it is summarising or quoting something that is cited in the body of the article. And Sitush is not guilty of 3RR, as they are four different edits he has reverted (if they're different edits, it's not even edit-warring, and he clearly explained the reasons why they were all inappropriate). Also, they are changes that have long been disputed on the Talk page and consensus is firmly against them, with nobody yet having been able to produce sources. I'm afraid we have yet another caste warrior here who just won't listen when we explain our policies on sourcing and consensus - I've tried explaining it all on the article Talk page, but as usual that gets nowhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, without examining the merits, but just on a technicality on first reading - is too a 3RR vio if there are more than 3 reverts. The policy is quite clear on "whether the same or different material each time" "on a single page". I've never particularly agreed with the brightness of that brightline rule, since I believe in defending the wiki, but my reading disagrees with yours. I did a 7RR once and came out OK due to the BLP shelter, and again, I;m not arguing the case. Your statement strikes me as odd though. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside comment. I don't see any 3RR violation in the article history; if there are 4 reverts, if I'm reading the article history right, they aren't within 24 hours. And I don't see removing edits that are against an expressed talk page consensus as, in most cases, edit warring. But I don't agree that 3RR wouldn't apply "as they are four different edits he has reverted." The 3RR policy says pretty clearly: whether involving the same or different material each time [it] counts as a revert. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: The warning I gave was for repeating the same anti-consensus edit after having had it reverted once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just a caste warrior but one of a group of editors who have recently been tendentious across numerous India-related articles, eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna, Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Exceptions_to_national_varieties_of_English, Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni. There might be a boomerang to be caught here. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it any surprise that folks with whom I have a dispute describe me as "caste warrior". I am hoping for fresh eyes here. And I also completely dispute the claims that citations are unnecessary in lead and infobox. Anyway, let's wait for some time?-MangoWong (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual cases of the need for citations are decided by consensus. So if you dispute it, which is your right, then you should discuss it on the Talk page and not edit war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any point in discussing content issues with you. I also don't see why you would intervene by saying what needs a cite and what doesn't. You had claimed here that the lead and infobox do not need citations, that's why I had to dispute your claim here only. Can we wait for fresh eyes?-MangoWong (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are well aware that there are plenty of eyes on the article. There is a sort of debate brewing regarding whether the infobox would be better removed entirely, and certainly there is some agreement for removal of the specific field you refer to. However, while it exists it remains the case that the issue is cited in the body of the article and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Adding a cite to the infobox (which you could actually have done yourself instead of requesting one) is mere duplication and clutter. None of this is relevant to ANI. It is a content dispute issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @MangoWong: Two of us opined in the edit summaries that duplicated cites were not needed, and I also explained my view on your Talk page. Now, the place to discuss content and citation of a specific article is on that article's Talk page - and if you refuse to discuss it there and seek consensus then you simply get no say in the matter. And no, you can't just keep getting your own word in and telling me to shut up and wait for someone else to come along - if you misrepresent what I have said and done and you make accusations against me, I will reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will surely discuss the content issue at the article talk page. But violation of 3RR and undue admin intervention are legitimate matters for this noticeboard. Being one of the accused parties, you don't get to close this thread. Please note you may have a COI here. I request fresh eyes. You are not it.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I haven't closed the thread, and I'm not stopping anyone else commenting on the 3RR accusation - in fact, don't you remember that I specifically suggested you should complain here if you had any issues with my conduct? Yes, of course it needs someone else to judge this, and I'm not for a moment trying to do it myself - but that does not mean I cannot defend myself against your complaints, and part of that was my explaining why I gave you that warning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified user:Sitush at his talk page that I have reported him. He is confident that my report will fail. User talk:Sitush. I have also notified the admin who placed a warning on my talkpage and who also reverted my cn tag.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    This incident is regarding article Kurmi.-MangoWong (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is about Kurmi, a Hindu Jati. As such the article lacks sufficient religious understanding of Hinduism regarding the Jati. As already discussed, the varna system is not ironclad(unlike racism, where race can not be changed by religion), though several references that indicate approval of the Kshatriya status of Kurmis(from reliable sources) has been ignored. This acknowledgement is completely absent on the page, which is also against the 'generally recognized Shudra status' understanding too, & therefore disputed.
    Comparing with pages like Catholic Church or Protestantism, it can be said that there should be no such aversion to religious sources and these shouldn't be ignored by giving excuses like "ancient"/"mythological"/"unreliable"/etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above from Thisthat2011 is completely irrelevant to this forum, as indeed it was irrelevant in several other places where s/he tried to gain attention. This is exactly the sort of peppering of multiple forums that has been going on. The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very relevant, considering that we are discussing notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' here as disputed. When in Hinduism at many places Kurmis are regarded as Kshatriya explicitly. The notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' does not hold true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's a content issue. And you know where content issues get discussed, don't you? You certainly should, because you've been told often enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not try to explain content issues here. The main issue here is the 3RR vio by Sitush, (which Boing! said Zebedee claims is not even an edit war and did not even warn Sitush about, while he should have been blocked. And Boing! said Zebedee not only warned me for one revert, but also reverted) and undue admin interference by Boing! said Zebedee in content related editorial matters.-MangoWong (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just mistaken, MangoWong. 3RR means no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The first revert occurred at 09:36 July 21 (UTC). The 24 hour mark from that first revert would have been at 09:36 July 22 (UTC), correct? Very simple. But the 4th revert didn't occur until 16:07 July 22 (UTC), almost 7 hours later than the 24 hour mark from the first revert. In other words, the 3RR limit was reached in that 24 hour period (and Sitush even acknowledged that in the edit summary of the 3rd revert), but was not breached. If you're asking for a block because the bright-line of 3RR was crossed, you either weren't aware that it had to be done in the same 24 hour period or simply misread the times that were logged with the edits. Either way you are mistaken. I don't see anything actionable, B!sZ made a good summation above as to what's going on, and I agree that all that needs to be addressed now is the dispute about content in the article, which isn't done here. -- Atama頭 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3RR is a non-issue. I found your comment on my talk page that reporting me here was a "morale boost" rather disturbing. Quite simply, aside from what BsZ has already said, the fourth revert was well over 24 hours after the first and I had already given warning on the article talk page that the changes being made were disruptive. You ignored that and umpteen other notices etc, which is why BsZ was right to jump in at your talk page and explain yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, although I really do try to assume good faith, I really am starting to see what looks a lot like deliberate pushing at the boundaries, seeking to pressurise the people working on these articles, to trying to pounce on us for alleged procedural failures - while steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual desired content changes and provide reliable sources. If anyone has reliable sources, all they have to do is provide them and get a consensus and that will be sorted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Atama. Thanks for your time and for clarifying my mistake to me. I agree that your interpretation of this being a non vio of 3RR is correct. I apologize to Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee for my misinterpretation of events/timestamps in this regard. However, I have one more important issue here. Do you think it is proper for Boing! said Zebedee to give no warning to Sitush while he performs three reverts within a 24 hour period. But places a warning on my talk page as soon as I make one revert (putting up a cn tag) and also makes me a revert warrior and also goes on to call me a "caste warrior" and what not, and expects me to provide sources for some abstract material which I have never desired to put up. He also claims that sourcing is unnecessary in the lead and infobox and has also reverted my edit even when it was explained in the edit summary and was only a (citation needed) tag. And is also now claiming on my talk page that I should discuss things before making edits. And has generally tried to poison the well against me without showing any wrongdoing on my part. Besides this mitake in reading timestamps, could he show how my edits are wrong (for the tirade which he has put up against me). He is also offering to support me if I discuss things first. Why should he participate in ed discussions? Why should I want his support in these discussions? Is he not behaving in an undue manner and taking an undue interest in content issues and is he not giving some appearance of showing partiality? I have also tried to explain some of the issues with him on the article talk page talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could take a look at that thread....I would ialso be grateful if you may keep a general eye on Hindu caste articles. I desperately feel they are in need of fresh eyes. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave you the warning (which I was not an automatic templated one, and I didn't think it was unfriendly) after you'd made the same change *twice*. Have a look at WP:BRD. It's an essay, but it is meant to supplement policy, and explains pretty well the way to avoid edit warring. By all means make a Bold change (the B), but if someone Reverts it (the R), don't do it again, because that's the start of edit warring (and that's what I was warning about - I didn't want you to end up blocked for edit warring). Instead, you should do the D - Discuss. Whether a {{cn}} tag is or is not appropriate is a question for Talk page discussion, not for ANI, but you wouldn't take it there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A Question
    (ec) I'd like to ask for some feedback on one point, if I may. My contention is that my actions (in protecting Kurmi earlier after IPs once again made anti-consensus changes, in reverting the start of an edit war, etc) were procedural, and that acting as an admin to enforce a consensus decided by other people is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED - I wasn't acting to protect my preferred version, but the version hammered out (quite traumatically) by lengthy discussion and source-based consensus on the Talk page. I also contend that I have taken part in none of the actual content discussions, only in procedural discussions, and I have no idea myself what the classifications of the various castes should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Counting this [66], you have personally reverted my edits twice. However, you have self-reverted. And the first edit which you reverted was a citation tag. You say it is somehow unnecessary. Why? Why do you interfere in these matters? You have also put up a message regarding this edit on my talk page, claiming that I should discuss before removing sourced content. Why? I think it is not part of your admin functions.-MangoWong (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See above - trying to make the same edit twice, after being reverted once (not by me), is a procedural issue and it is perfectly proper for an admin to take action to head it off - but please note that I did not actually take any admin actions in response to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see if I can address both of you at once. For MangoWong, I wouldn't have warned Sitush either after that third edit, because Sitush made it obvious in the edit summary that he knew he was at 3RR. As to what B!sZ left on your user talk page, I don't see it as a warning at all. B!sZ reverted you and then left a note on your user talk page that you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is exactly what people should do to avoid an edit war. It seemed to be more of an appeal than a warning. A warning typically cites a policy or guideline you're breaking, or cites what actions can be taken against you for taking a particular action. I see the note on your user talk page as just a request to bring the issue to the talk page to avoid an edit war and it was appropriate.
    Now, as to whether or not B!sZ became involved by acting in the role of an editor rather than an administrator... That's a bit of a grey area. I do believe that the intention wasn't to try to change the article to a preferred version. But at the same time, I don't see that it's an administrator's role to enforce consensus, at least not in that manner. WP:CONADMIN explains how administrators get involved in consensus disputes, and our role is to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and otherwise try to keep things from getting out of hand. But trying to maintain the content of an article to reflect a local consensus seems to me the role of an editor, not an administrator. Admins who choose to get involved in that way have to take off the admin hat, and I think that in this case, B!sZ did make himself involved (if inadvertently). Since that wasn't his intention, he self-reverted before further edits were made, and I think that is a gesture that clearly shows his intention to not be involved. Any further administrator actions should be appropriate as long as he continues to maintain neutrality in regards to article content.
    Anyway, those are just observations from an outside admin, anyone can feel free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, appreciate your thoughts. Any further thoughts regarding my semi-protection of the article to prevent IPs (who are probably blocked editors) repeating the same anti-consensus edits that have been going on for months? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) (That had nothing to do with the MangoWong edits, btw - it happened earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Any advice about how to "deal with" (poor phrasing) tendentious commenting on the talk page would also be appreciated, especially since it often also gets moved onto other pages. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Atama for looking up my complaint and for your excellent and patient explanations. I certainly think that it should help in improving the situation. I again apologize to Boing! said Zebedee if I have been intemperate or rash or hurt his/her feelings in any way. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no worries about feelings, I've been in this kind of business long enough to be immune to such considerations. But I'm happy to apologise for going a step too far with the reversions - I should not have done that last one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Semi-protection or other admin actions seem okay as long as you maintain that you're only acting as an administrator at the article. My advice though, and this is just personal advice (and may not even be good advice) would be that if too many people are uncomfortable with your acting as an administrator that you step back and ask someone else to do it. On the other hand, sometimes editors use WP:INVOLVED like a bludgeon to drive off a disagreeable admin, or play games (like insulting an admin then claiming any further actions are retaliation for the insult). I don't see anything like that happening here (MangoWong's questions about the matter are reasonable) but it can and does happen (I see it too often on ANI actually) so it can be a fine line between trying to be civil and fair, and giving in to an aggressive editor. I do think it's a good thing for an admin to keep an eye on things at that article while the dispute is ongoing, to keep the peace, and you have an interest in doing it, so I'd encourage you to continue.
    2) Tendentious comments can be a trial because when people play WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or refuse to drop the stick nothing can get done. So just try to compromise, be patient and civil, and if you just can't get anywhere try various tools shown at WP:DR. Content disputes can drag on for months if people are completely opposed to one another and there is no real black-and-white answer. I wish I had a magic trick that would solve everything but I don't think such a thing exists (if it did then maybe I could get back into mediation again without having to give up hours of my schedule).
    3) MangoWong, you're very welcome and I hope that you and everyone else at the article can find a peaceful solution to the conflict. -- Atama頭 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate those thoughts too. On this and other related articles, over the past few months there have been a lot of people making apparently coordinated attacks on everyone involved and trying to turn them into caste-glorification articles, with a lot of socks and meats, a good few of whom are now blocked (though I'm certainly not accusing MangoWong of being one of them). That's the only reason I became involved, to try to protect the editors working there from abuse. It's hard to steer a clear path between doing that, and leaving myself open to "involved" accusations, especially as very few admins want to work with these article disputes. Anyway, your advice will help me, so thanks again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed, thank you. One final query if I may, Atama. You refer above to situations where there is no black-and-white answer. What about when there is a B&W answer (as in, no sources being found for the other POV or sources being found for it but which are not reliable etc) ? This is at the heart of some recent tendentiousness. Should such a situation be taken to DR and, if so, how does one judge when to do it? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anyone who has had a dispute with you and you have not described them as "tendentious"/"troll" etc. about a dozen and a score times. Why do you imagine you yourself are free from these characteristics?-MangoWong (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, "black and white" is a situation where we have a clear policy that is being violated and the policy needs to be enforced. WP:V is a policy but enforcing it isn't easy, neither is WP:UNDUE. In the most extreme cases, a person who insists on including unverifiable information can be accused of violating WP:OR, and a person who habitually does so can be blocked. But usually it's a case where people disagree on whether or not sources are reliable, in which case they can ask for help at WP:RSN or just try to find some way to agree. WP:POVN is another place where you might be able to ask for help. In the absolute worst cases, where multiple people disagree, an RFC can't come to a conclusion, and mediation is tried and fails, you could end up at ArbCom. And that's never good. ArbCom doesn't help people make content decisions, ArbCom for the most part hands out bans and blocks, or discretionary sanctions, and some people aren't going to be happy. At times it's necessary but try as best you can to avoid going that far.
    Tendentiousness on Wikipedia has a particular definition, and there are signs when an editor is being tendentious. If someone is following that pattern of behavior, they should be encouraged to change, otherwise they may face sanctions if they continue. If they aren't following that pattern, it's best to avoid using that terminology. -- Atama頭 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I had read WP:TE and am not the only person to have pointed it out to this particular group of contributors. The NPOVN report is what caused the artiel to become fully protected for a week and, frankly, it has achieved nothing. I do realise that a week is not a long time but during it all that happened was mostly repetitive, irrelevant argument for a completely unsustainable POV (at least, unsustainable in the Wikipedia context). Almost as soon as the protection came off, IPs jumped in to make non-consensual edits, and then some registered users did the same. Then we ended up here. I will have a think about how to take this forward. Your comments are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At the risk of sounding self-righteous, those of us involved in caste cleanup are seeing about 95% completely WP-inappropriate editing opposing us, and about 5% opposition which is both evidently well-meaning and following WP procedure. Setting aside specifics of individual content disputes, I tend to feel like I'm working hard to give a full story and I'm against human waves of (generally inexperienced and unwilling to learn) editors who are hellbent-for-leather to erase anything "negative" from an article, particularly the term Shudra. In the entire six months or so I've been covering that specific angle, at not a single point has an ANI, POV, or WPINDIA consensus come back to say "stop doing what you're doing" or even "modify what you're doing". Instead all we've gotten is neutral admins saying "keep up the good work." Behaviour-wise, we've had a few "don't get tetchy" or "don't fall into a revert war", but nobody outside the argument has ever told us "stop writing Shudra, stop questioning Kshatriya claims." Imagine that happening for 20 articles in a row, and every single time seeing the exact same arguments, ad hominem "you don't understand India!!!", veiled legal threats, and every single time an abject refusal to actually deal with sources that actually say Shudra. I'm not being cute here, it's pretty much the exact same argument in each article, but with different people.

    At this point, either I and Sitush and the others are due for a massive admin action to target out blatant malfeasance all over India topics... or we're actually doing the right thing in the face of all kinds of emotional opposition. Again, I haven't seen a single editor who didn't appear to be emotionally involved take issue with these trends in caste article cleanups, so as far as I'm concerned we're on the right track. That's exactly why I'm glad whenever an ANI comes up, because aside from extremely small procedural slips from time to time, we are genuinely working hard to ensure caste articles are not used for caste glorification, or to whitewash the not-so-pretty side of history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think MatthewVanitas has summed up the whole situation very well there. If we were to believe every unsourced or poorly sourced claim that castes are not Shudra but Kshatriya, we'd have to end up concluding that everyone in India was a warrior or a king, and there was nobody doing all the ordinary jobs. I have no idea which castes were what, and what proportion of castes are Shudra, but the logical conclusion of the totality of the claims the editors here are facing is clearly ludicrous -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to say it, but that's generally what ArbCom is meant to fix. If consistently disruptive behavior comes from multiple people at articles that are related to a particular subject, ArbCom can hand down a discretionary sanction that says that anyone who repeats that behavior at those articles can be blocked by administrators if they persist after warnings. WP:AE is set up to assist with such enforcement. It's a long road to get there though, as I said they generally won't accept a case unless (1) all other options are exhausted (see WP:DR for a list of other options), (2) there is sufficient disruption that a remedy needs to be brought, and (3) they feel that they actually can do something to help. If all 3 of those prerequisites aren't met, it's unlikely that ArbCom will accept the case. -- Atama頭 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. This is particularly worrying where nobody seems to know what s***** means or why it is inhuman and have no clue why or how this is a sensitive topic. NPOV is OK with me, but I do not think it should be allowed to become a cover for asserting inhuman descriptions to what are humans.-MangoWong (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And there ^ is the unsustainable POV again. Wikipedia is not censored. The present group have been informed of that (with the link), had it explained to them etc on umpteen occasions. It does not matter what the law of India says and it does not matter if the term offends particular individuals. It was and remains a widely used term and until recently was even so in India itself. The present deprecation of the term is made clear in the article, although it is noted on the talk page that in fact the Indian government seems still to use the term itself even though apparently it is banned. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. Counterpoint: two eds who have no emotional investment in this particularly sensitive topic. As noted above, it is significant that nobody with a self-declared detachment from the topic is on the anti-us "side". I hate to use the term "side", but that is unfortunately kind of what it's been the last few months. One of us gets to an article, sees a bunch of inflated claims to being "kings and warriors" and descent from Hindu gods, we do five minutes of gBook searches of actua academics, and lo and behold its a caste of bricklayers or oil pressers or chartered accountants or what have you. We find sources that say "claim to be Kshatriya warriors descended from God XYZ", so we duly note that legend/belief, add details on how the Fooian caste was registered in British censuses as Shudra and by the modern Indian government as "Backwards", and then out of the woodwork come literally dozens of new-regs, SPAs, IPs, and to be fair a handful of more experienced editors, and we're simply bombarded with endless posts of "YOU ARE WRONG THEY ARE WARRIORS NOT SHUDRA!!!! CORRECT YOUR GRIEVOUS ERROR OR I WILL CONTACT THE FOOIAN DEFENSE SOCIETY FOR LEGAL ACTION!!!" We ask for cites, we provide more of our own cites, we suggest POV/ANI/DR to every person who accuses us of horribly bias and malfeasance, we refer people to WP:INDIA, we link them to gBooks and WP:N and WP:V and every other applicable policy, but the arguments just go on, and on, and on, and on.
    Not every single caste article, but I bet I can't go more than a few days of caste-cleanup without inadvertently hitting a "land mine" of dissent. There have been a very few cases of running across concientious editors who grasp that they can't exclude things and that it's in everyone's best interest just to be straight-up (see the recent history of Reddy), but that is by far in the minority. I used to be able to get a lot of work done on all kinds of topics, but now the vast majority of my WP-time is in circular arguments about caste and getting accused of everything from being a Brahmin to a Muslim to a racist to (literally) a paid editor working to defame and libel the Fooian caste or what have you. So you understand why I've been a little sensitive about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes no logic IMO whether or not it is sustainable/unsustainable. And like everything else, IMO "WP is not censored" too has its limits. We won't go about writing that people of X state in Ajekika are vermin, jiljsi people are vermin, sauggfu people are vermin. Would we? It is also interesting that you acknowledge that you do your "research" (not your word) on GBooks. And my concerns about two eds overbearing influence on a whole topic stand.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If your position runs contrary to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and you cannot cause a change in those then your position on the POV is unsustainable here. I doubt that many university press publications etc say that "Ajekika are vermin", but there are plenty of reliable sources such as those which say that Kurmi are or were Shudra. It is/was a ritual "rank" in Hinduism: that is a fact and although I am not aware of any censorship limits to WP articles, this issue certainly would not fall into any such exceptions because the term is being used in an appropriate place and with an appropriate note for balance. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns would cover a lot of articles besides Kurmi. But presently the India noticeboard has been declared out of bounds for any discussion. I do not see a better place than that to go about holding the discussion on this issue in a centralized way. I did not say that there is a source to say "Ajekika are vermin". I would have thought that it was clear that is was only a hypothetical example. Whether my position is in keeping or contrary to WP policy is not for you alone to determine. As Atama has been indicating, we may have a long way to go if we take an uncompromising stance. There certainly are proper and improper ways to apply the censorship policy. It is not a license to say obscene things. Is it? It should not also become a license to say obscene things about the "other". Should it? And how do you know that this word falls under the category of obscene/non obscene when you would not seem to have grasped its meaning? And I still find it interesting that you do not say anything when I note that you do your "research" on Gbooks. And my concern that two eds should be allowed to exercise an overbearing influence on a whole topic also remains.-MangoWong (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that your concerns extend well beyond Kurmi and indeed cover a swathe of India-related content, not even just caste/community articles. I was also aware that your vermin comment was hypothetical. Turning to your main point, I am afraid that you still seem not to be understanding. Wikipedia does indeed contain a lot of subject matter that various groups would consider to be obscene. There are articles on religion, on sex, on genocide etc which often give rise to some people wishing that the project was indeed censored. But it is not, or at least not in the way that you wish it to be. If something satisfies the standard requirements of WP:V, WP:RS etc and is not WP:FRINGE then it is valid content. One of the great things about having absolutely no connection to India is that I can see the wood for the trees and sometimes I feel that there is a massive COI issue here and perhaps some people would gain from doing a little work in an area from which they are equally detached: much can be learned from doing so. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns could take me to any article which I could expect myself to understand and improve. I do know that we have numerous articles which say obscene things. But still. There are encyclopedic needs which may have validity. But beyond the point of encyclopedic needs, when something begins to become license for malicious material, we have to put the foot down. Whether my/your point be correct or not cannot be determined here. There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content. Whether what you want to do / are doing would be in keeping with these policies may also be debatable. I know why you bring up COI. I have known for some time that you want folks from my demographic pattern only to be prevented from editing articles related to them. Get that policy in place first. And I certainly would not go about editing articles about things like Haiku or calligraphy unless I knew something about them. Even if I did, I would not start dominating "History of Madagascar" on the basis of my Gbooks research. Maybe I could see through the spelling or check the references (to some extent) etc. But beyond that is not wise.-MangoWong (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please retract your comment about me wanting to prevent people from your demographic ... etc. Or show me the diff. It is another gross slur from you. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sitush has not said that Indians should not edit India articles; I said that people who cannot edit a topic close to them but are overall well-intentioned, like some editors we've encountered in these caste articles, should be required to edit topics emotionally unconnected to them until they learn neutrality. I also said that it would be a very positive development if more non-Indians (like myself and Sitush) would work on India articles so that the "Fooian caste" article would not be 90% Fooians, 7% their enemy Gooians, and a few bewildered foreigners like me attempting to apply WP policies to the chaos. You fixate on gBooks: what of it? That's a place to find a lot of books in a searchable format. How on Earth does using gBooks negatively impact my credibility? Should I instead be pulling 19th century Gujarati history off the top of my head?

    You say There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content; well, let's not be coy, explain to us which policies say "even if the Kurmi were Shudra, you shouldn't say it because it's not a nice word." I'd further argue that any visceral distaste for the term that you and others evince appears to be a somewhat modern trait, perhaps a result of the Indian government/society's stringent efforts to erase caste awareness in hopes of smoothing over long-standing grudges? I have had other editors literally tell me that I can't say X or Y about a caste (despite copious footnotes) because riots are caused over lesser arguments. I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How did this degenerate into discussion on behavior of the page when I was explicitly told "But that's a content issue.". Who is playing smart here?
    Please focus on the topic and don't run off to unrelated propaganda. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TT, once again: ANI is about behaviour, articles Talk pages are for content, WP:INDIA is for either calling attention (in a neutral way) to ongoing discussions on articles, or for discussing overarching issues bigger than individual editors (ANI for that) or individual articles (at their own pages). For anyone unfamiliar with TT's discussion habits, see Talk:Kurmi. His are the sort of endless circular arguments which have been taking up vast amounts of our time, and we dare not simply drop out of the arguments since he'll lambast us for not replying to him (even if it's the same issue we've already answered him on 5 times and already addressed 20 times earlier on the page). I'm confident that a neutral editor reading Talk:Kurmi would agree that "tendentious" may well apply to his behaviour there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments are in direct contrast to what User:Sitush("The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution") & Boing! said Zebedee("But that's a content issue") mentioned. You can't have different standards at different places. Anyways, I mentioned already that I had presented reliable sources regarding recognition of Hindu Kshatriya status to Kurmis in many regions and at different times, which was ignored completely. These content from reliable sources are ignored repeatedly. If ANI is about behavior, it is also not about lambasting others after rhetoric and assumptions of behavior by 'neutral editors'. I can put a dozen assumptions, too which I thankfully don't. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (od)(1)Zeedee was wrong about 3R as pointed out by two editors above (2)Zeedee by his own admission was actively editing and then using admin tools in an article which should not be done, he should not use admin tools in an article he is involved. (3)Zeedee is wrong about citations in the lead, Manual of Style (lead section) The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." (4)He uses words like caste warriors, which are highly racist.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    sub-section

    Yogesh Khandke named party's statement::(1)Sitush: above dropped an intimation on my talk page that brought me here. (2)Sitush has called me a tendentious editor above, (linked diffs involving me), which cuts both ways. (3)(a)Actually he hounded me and reached Sudheendra Kulkarni, by his own admission, he played tag, and got along a friend of his along. (b)On Kurmi he thinks that he has taken a copyright on facts, and he puts his head in the sand, which is a pity (c)The GangaxGanges dispute is going to be a classic long running play, I think, the wp:Article titles bit was just a small act. What about that Sitush?? Isn't bringing that up puerile? (3)Earlier he brought a sock investigation against me, just because we had a content dispute. (4)Admins: let us not discuss content, look at behaviour. Though because hanging a sock requires a machine, I came out of it unscathed, I am not so sure with humans, as Sitush rightly pointed out, user:Zuggernaut, was put in the freezer, when his RfC, bomeranged. (6)I wanted to discuss Sitush's behaviour on the India notice board, as a third party input before dispute resolution, but wasn't allowed to. I will provide diffs of each sentence, if anybody wishes. The problem is bigger than Sitush, he actually is much more benign than the other guys. (7)Today's a busy day for me and can't hang on. I just hope no action is taken without all parties given a decent hearing. (8)I had suggested a non-controversial way of dealing with caste see my Kurmi sandbox (9)Another thing mentioned above is that 3RR is ok if it is predeclared this came from an admin, is that a policy?? (10)On the Gandhi move argument someone just said that Indian editing is a plague hit on Wikipedia, what are you doing about that?? Or am I wasting my time here, just like someone said on the Gandhi page or in the context "Gandhi fight for justice was great becuuse he had to content with British police, British judges, British jury and British government" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the other member of the alleged team. I invite everyone to read Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni#Overlinking for one of the most ridiculous conversations in which I have participated ever. If there is anything remiss in my behavior, please, please trout me, or do whatever seems appropriate. LadyofShalott 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry LadyofShalott, I have nothing against you, nor do I have an axe to grind against Sitush, see this short thing on Sudheendra Kulkarni, comes across as ridiculous to you, perhaps because you know that there would be no confusion regarding Indian and Indian, why dont you folks follow the same logic with the Kurmi page, well we can have ghits and books and other things but that makes one only as good as a blind man of Indostan, no one above says "sacrifice Wikipedia principles", but why do you assume plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals and the like?? Sitush/ and I had said the same thing to Zeedee, MangoWango is right with the Madagascar example, Sitush that prevents one from making mistakes like Other Backward Caste on Kurmi page, or implicating Kulkarni on his page. You were careless about a BLP, which is a display of incompetent editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Words like plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals are indeed reflected as uncivilized expression, regardless of who it is directed at. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope no one minds my dropping by. Just a friendly hello and a few observations. I am the one who is being quoted above about Gandhi. I do see a pattern when dealing with India related articles. India is a nation with more than 5000 years of history. It's highly complex and to understand it deep knowledge of topics is required. Just as I won't go on editing topics on rocket science, anyone who writes on this topics does need an understanding of issues at hand. I am sure that everyone involved here is trying to help wiki. There are some limitations due to knowledge and if someone more knowledgeable than us is speaking on topics then it's good to listen with open mind. I am very sad to see Gandhi termed as Racist due to his so called caste related ideas'. What can be far from truth. Gandhi was not assassinated by Godsey, I am seeing it happen now. The same is happening here. People are termed 'caste warriors' and what not. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, a lot of this "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" is pure red herring in my opinion. When I've written extensively on rather complicated but not unpalatable Indian topics, even caste issues like dress/cuisine/political-history, nobody bats an eye at the quality of my research. But yet when I have explicit academic references saying "Among the Shudra castes of this region are the Fooians", and a dozen other refs with similar or even more explicit statements, and I add and cite it, all of a sudden come the protests and "you don't understand India." Notice nobody objects to any "positive" material I add; never posts saying "Whoa, you called the Fooian caste major landowners who were very influential in Raj politics; you don't understand India!" Not that understanding India isn't important, but I think I'm doing a pretty solid job of summarising reliable secondary sources, and any slip-ups we make can of course be corrected by folks who notice a discrepancy ("hey, you wrote that the Fooians are vegetarian, but note [cite] that they also eat fish"). However, the massive POV issues which cause any "negative" content to be met with rage are far more troubling than a few non-Indian editors being slavish to gBooks resources because they're not long-term India hands.
    So far as "rocket science": this isn't rocket science. Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere, and it's not like it's so complex that very basic historical statements can't be made from secondary sources. We've also been hearing the last few weeks accusations that we "don't understand what Shudra means", despite the fact that I'm actually doing cleanup on the Varna (Hinduism) and similar articles. And some of the editors here like to hammer the cuteness, so when we don't respond to that we get reams of "OMG!!! Did you see how he's tongue-tied when I said he doesn't even know what Shudra even means!?!?!" If by "don't know what it means" you mean "don't have a personal squeamishness about a historical term that prevents one from looking at it academically", sure feel free to call it that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering how "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" could be a red harring, one should also consider assumptions like "more neutral than Indians", and "Indians should rather edit something else" the same. As far as I can see, on the topic Kurmi there is an emphasis on how Kurmis have went about for Kshatriya status, more than how Kurmis are considered Kshatriya etc., regardless of reliable sources.
    As far as "Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere", kindly let us know what other places(& all other places) that show a marked resemblance in history like the Indian history? That you don't know something and therefore later learn it might as well is no excuse to keep on editing pages and then learn by mistake/debate/RFC/ANI etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Fellow Contributor, A lot what we know today about ancient India is due to great travellers such as Fa Hien, who were foreigners. I have no qualms about anyone. Great historians from different times have written freely about India. India as we know today is due to everyone who came there and mixed in that melting pot. These historians wrote from what they saw and based on their knowledge.

    Just because pediatrics and gynecology both deal with human body it doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other. I just checked your contributions and I am happy to see your contributions across hundreds of topics. I am slightly concerned as these topics are on so many unrelated fields. I welcome you to visit India. I am sure you may already have. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas, if you want to perform experiments like these to find out whether what you say is correct or not, I would suggest that it is preferable that you invent your own human beings and do your experiments on them only. As for the limitations of GBooks, I think this is not the place to discuss it.-MangoWong (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No MV what was manifest on the Kurmi talk page, and later when my castexclass edit was reverted was sheer lack of competence.[67] The repeated reversions appear before the diff. And he had a friendly admin. Ugh.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not accuse someone of incompetence without checking around first. For example, I know that caste/class are interchangeable words in the context which you refer to. The govt of India use both, the articles at WP use both. I did say on the talk page that if you really, really wanted one word rather than the other than that was fine by me. It didn't mean that I was going to change it myself. You are making another false accusation about my contributions, just as you have done above with regards to my contributions on the Sudheendra Kulkarni article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All talk and no diffs makes Jack a hot air balloon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff you requested. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any false accusations there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but you never can, can you? Even when it stares you in the face, you find some absolutely ridiculous way to twist things. In recent days you have argued untenable points with BsZ about trivial stuff, with Salvio, with LadyofShallot, with me, MatthewVanitas and umpteen others. But you are never wrong, are you? You "win" (as you seem to see it) because you wear good contributors down. That is not what this place is supposed to be about. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You win Sitush. If that makes you feel better. Also [[68]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Honestly, I need to find a way to get a hold on all of this disruptive activity, and I will sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Sitush, I agree that you seriously need to find some way to get your conspiracy theories out of your head. I have located the coordinators of these persistent attacks. If we keep inserting oceans of distasteful lies (please see my edit summaries in the diffs and see what its about)[69] and absurdities[70] and outrageously sick baseless falsities [71] in our articles, we are the ones who are coordinating those attacks. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles. We tell lies and people object. And we also have a strong resistance to attempts to take our lies. (Please see the other edits around the diffs). So, why should these attacks not continue? So, who else is coordinating these attacks?-MangoWong (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Sitush, I do sympathize with you. Let me check what this link means. I will get back on this in a few minutes or may be more. The text is in someother language that I don't understand. Let's see what google translate comes up with. Hang on tight soldier. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Google isn't of much help. It detects it as something else, but I do get the point raised there. I would have to give some points to the cleverness of that person whose post you pointed above. To test your knowledge about that topic, the person wrote something in Malyalam. You have no idea what those lines mean. But it does bring the same thought that these editors have been trying to communicate. Knowledge of a topic is important. Being neutral is what we must strive for, but it does require an understanding of the topic. I can see the same concers are being raised over and over again. I do hope that you do keep on contributing and try to be more accomodative. As Atama pointed out earlier admin MUST not get into content dispute. If that's what you wanted to point out earlier about the admins involved in this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Cleverness"? You think it's cute that IPs insult people in a language that don't know, and sagely opine that it highlights the supposedly vital point that we are not Indian? If anything, the example you cite shows that the people who "know about the subject" are often more interested in lambasting and arguing than making actual WP-relevant points. Again, I submit that any disadvantage arising from our non-Indianness is, per the vast evidence from many Talk pages, far outweighed by our neutrality on issues which evidently push many contributors into the realm of emotion vice fact.
    We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles - I don't care if 10,000 Indian IPs come in and object; if they don't bring in sources to support A, and can't contradict B, than B stays in. Being Indian gives them no intrinsic authority on the subject. For example, if there were a controversial and heavily-cited paragraph in Vietnam War and tons of self-declared American editors insisted on removing comments which reflected negatively on American's participation, would you say "oh, they must know more about American history, I must be wrong" or would you say "they are clearly refusing to face uncomfortable historical facts and thus are resorting to edit warring and ad hominem atacks" ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Polgar Hiding in plain sight

    Resolved
     – No admin. action required.

    Could someone lend a hand here. Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't want to see the solution to a chess problem in the Susan Polgar article, so he's put it in a collapse box four times now. He's got a marvellous explanation as to why WP:COLLAPSE doesn't apply [72] - apparently it only applies to 'notable content'. He thinks I'm being really mean to him - I used one of my Yorkshire expressions and it really hasn't turned out well [73] [74] [75] - I'll hold my hands up and say I really should have learned not to do that by now. Could someone who isn't me explain to him that we don't hide content because a user doesn't want to see it. We've had absolute battles over this in the past, over things like the Rorscharch inkblots (Wikipedia was allegedly undermining the entire basis of psychiatry according to some) and pictures of Mohammed, but this is just a user who doesn't want to see how Polgar solved a chess problem. If anyone thinks I also deserve a trout for handling this badly, I have the frying pan waiting. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Coincidentally, I play chess. I'll take a look. I wondered why that name sounded familiar. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the problem is with that puzzle that she composed at age 4, I actually like the idea of hiding the solution in the fashion he has. This is a good concept. CycloneGU (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it better to hide it than show it? I don't see any policy-based reasoning or MOS reason to collapse it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both WP:COLLAPSE and WP:Spoiler are guidelines, not policies, and both lead with the disclaimer that reasonable exceptions can be made. I think this is a situation that could be a reasonable exception to both. Perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly, but it seems harmless to hide a solution to a chess problem that can be immediately revealed with a single click for those so inclined. I don't see that hiding that information in any way damages the project or its goals. —Torchiest talkedits 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Torchiest has it correct. Someone viewing the page and presented with this problem as part of an encyclopedic look at Polgar's early life and composition history could be assumed to want to attempt solving the problem before being presented with the solution. I myself thought of some possibilities, then clicked the Show button to see I was wrong all along. Why ruin it? Sure, this isn't an excyclopedia of chess problems or other puzzles, but in this context the same problem would appear in a regular encyclopedia as the creation of the youngest puzzle composer ever and the solution must be visible underneath; let's take advantage of what technological improvements are available to us. CycloneGU (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's OK, but I'd add that I've seen similar practices in print reference works -- a puzzle could be presented and discussed on one page, with the solution on a subsequent page, or in a chapter's end note, for example. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I dable in chess, and I concur with CycloneGU. Keeping the "show" button allows the reader to think about it for a moment. Jonathunder (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not article content, per se. It not prose, but rather part of a diagram. I think it is an elegant use of a feature, presenting a problem as a problem.Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the top of a slippery slope all the way down to the name of G-d and pictures of Mohamed and genitalia (with the butler did it somewhere in between), but I don't see any harm in hiding this chess solution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I didn't think that one through to the full implications. Concealing content in images or captions would be inappropriate. This was a case where it was clearly not an abuse and I think a better expression of why is that the goal is making the diagram interactive. The concealment, in this case, is content.Novangelis (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with CycloneGU as well. I don't see any harm in collapsing the solution, and he laid out why it can be seen in a positive light. Swarm X 19:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree also. It would be wrong to not show it at all, or to link elsewhere, but a chess problem loses its point if one can not avoid simultaneously seeing the solution at first--almost nobody could sufficiently focus their attention. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps one solution could be to mention that she created a notable chess problem at a young age, with an external link to a page containing the solution, if there is a convenient one available that meets our standards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No. There is no reason to create a new page containing merely the solution to the problem, or to link off-site to get the solution. I prefer to stay in the wiki and, if presented something like this for thought as part of an article, would not want to leave the article for the solution. CycloneGU (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, had to go make dinner for the family, then eat it, then watch some shows on gardening. I was worried as Anthonycole was, about this slippery slope stuff (veteran of persuading people that while we understand entirely that in the religion of Islam, images of the Prophet (BBH) are forbidden, this is actually an encyclopaedia with servers based in the US, so a different ballgame entirely). Can we perhaps formulate a very tight change to WP:COLLAPSE or WP:SPOILER pertaining specifically and completely restricted to where a notable problem (maths, chess etc) and notable solution is involved (for my sins, I did the drafting on the RFaR for the Monty Hall Problem). Alternatively, might it be possible to lay the article out so as to separate them - I know this was done with Monty Hall. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would be nice if the other editor involved could actually come and discuss this, rather than just continuing to post personal attacks [76] Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Excuse, please? I was responding to a question or challenge on the Talk:Susan Polgar page from an editor apparently trying to defend your behaviors towards me today. But it was off-topic for the Page, so I put it away. I don't appreciate your compounding things here with false accusation "personal attacks". You have been the aggressor today, not I. Including your consistent condescensions, creating a 3RR situation after consensus discussion had already been initiated on the Talk page, and threatening me with a block at my User page contrary to WP guideline advising that kind of behavior can easily be interpreted as overly-aggressive, which is how I interpreted it. I've asked you to please stop baiting me and I hope you'll respect that. I want to thank you, however, for opening this noticeboard incident on my behalf, but I did not appreciate the superior tone regarding how you framed the issue.)
    Obviously, of course, I agree with the Admins/editors here supporting the concealment technique for chess problem composition solutions. I know they are right. They know I am right. I've enjoyed reading their responses, they are all really great, really thoughtful. And they can express their reasons way better than I. (I especially liked the profound observation: "The concealment is the content.") The editors here understand the nature of chess problems; how they're different re WP:SPOILERS from movies or books. I think the main problem here might be a simple one: experience with chess. (Maybe if you're a player, you "get it". And if you're not, you don't. Based on how far I was getting you to understand my views on Talk:Susan Polgar, which was nowhere, I presume neither you nor the other reverting editor are players.) I am very appreciative of the wise editors here, and they give me great respect for WP as a whole, after a short but bad experience today on Talk:Susan Polgar. I'm still relatively new on WP, and this in total was an awesome, unexpected experience. Thanks to all. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When I went to bed last night I didn't imagine that I'd wake up to find the discussion about spoilers and chess problems to arrive on ANI...I figured maybe I'd be soliciting a third opinion or the like. My opinion is, no, they shouldn't, and let me say that I had in my youth extensive experience with chess problems, plus all sorts of puzzles, logic problems, etc., where knowing the answer "ruins" the problem. To me, that is in no way different than spoiling a movie, book, or play--especially if you think of those creative works whose sole interest is in the "twist", like a mystery novel, for instance. I don't like the idea that any group that feels that their "twist" is special gets to override WP:Spoiler, because that's the whole point of that guideline--some people think that their "twist" is special, so it has to be hidden away, but the consensus of the overall community is that no twist is special. However, perhaps this discussion is going beyond the bounds of what ANI can handle; maybe we need an RfC at WP:Spoiler.
    So, it seems it is back to square one, regarding your understanding there is an important difference, even in light of all the comments here from other editors?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note, though, I think you (Ihardlythinkso) misunderstood Elen's warning on your talk page. Elen isn't trying to warn you for your opinion on the spoiler tag; instead, she's warning you about WP:3RR. This policy is very strict, what we usually call a "bright line". No one is allowed to cross 3RR, no matter how right they think they are (even if, in fact, they "are" right based on policy and guidelines). The only exceptions are for things like reverting vandalism and violations of WP:BLP. That's why I stopped reverting your addition of the tags; once another editor reverted you, you should have stopped trying to add it and just participated in the talk page discussion. If you had reverted one more time, you would likely had been blocked, not because you're right or wrong about spoiler tags, but because you just can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. That is a case where the community has agreed that strict rules enforcement is a good thing in every single case not covered by an explicit exception. I've even seen admins who mistakenly break 3RR request their own block. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First, your assumption is wrong, I did not think Elen's threat to block had anything to do with the "spoiler tag", I knew it was about 3RR. (And BTW, please don't speak for Elen. And she should stop speaking for you. It's frustrating to dialogue with you, and hear from her in response. It's frustrating to get explanations from you, about what she did, or why you think she did something.) Second, your "refresher course" on 3RR is misplaced, since it wasn't needed - I already understood 3RR before interfacing with you or Elen. Third, please don't extend this topic (here), it has already wanndered off from purpose of the AN/I. (And I'm not looking for reply in any event, just so you know.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiding the solution looks good to me. I think one should always first look at what is best for an article while keeping in mind the fundamental Wiki-policies. It's not a good idea to let a good solution be overruled by some obscure policy or guideline, because the dynamics should be the other way around. It could be that there are novel uses for collapsing texts which can then lead to changes of the relevant policies.

    Another example: In this article, some of my derivations were collapsed by another editor, which was necessary in order to expand te article. So, I think there are a lot more legitimate uses for hiding texts on Wikipedia.

    Let's not forget that WP:IAR is the most important policy, saying that it is compulsory to follow the MOS is just ridiculous. This is just Wikipedia; you can get away with not sticking to the guidelines of serious peer reviewed journals and still get your article accepted. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ihardlythinkso, WP:SPOILER doesn't apply in this case. It says "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists." WP:COLLAPSE does apply; it says "boxes that toggle text between hide and show should not be used to hide article content. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." It would be possible to slip an exception for notable chess, maths, etc, solutions in there, and I'd suggest you do that now. Or you could just ignore the guideline, as the count suggests, but there are some strong feelings around this issue and you may find that, without an amendment to the MOS, you'll be defending this little collapse forever.
    You should be warned though, there was a long and somewhat bitter argument here years ago about collapsing plot summaries, offensive material and stuff some editors don't like, and some veterans of that conflict may see this benign and sensible suggestion as a challenge to their hard-won victory. If editors commenting here take the trouble to contribute to the argument there, you should prevail. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The good Count beat me to it. There is no better way for a chess problem to be presented in this nature, and WP:IAR applies if there are other rules suggesting otherwise. Many sites operate in this fashion, hiding the solution either until a single (or multiple) attempt(s) is(are) made - assuming you can play directly on the diagram. We have no reason to split the solurion and move it away from the puzzle in this instance, having a separate section titled "Answer to 4-year-old's Problem" or something stupid like that.
    I'm going to boldly mark this as resolved if no one minds. There isn't really any administrative action required here. CycloneGU (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wants to continue the discussion, I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC for Collapse boxes on chess problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for doing that. I am going to pop over and comment myself, in fact. CycloneGU (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:69.249.133.74, mostly at Louis Van Amstel

    On July 14, Floquenbeam blocked this IP for a week, citing "long term edit warring, BLP violations, silly threats, lack of discussion, and likely sockpuppetry." The editor involved apparently also has edited as User:Jww047. The user came off the block last night and promptly resumed edit warring on Louis Van Amstel, where most of the original problems seem to have started. The IP has already violated 3RR on that page and has ignored all warnings and comments from other editors, as is evidenced by their talk page. I've got little involvement in the page, but the problems are evident and the IP is unwilling to correct its behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've reblocked them, for a month. It's clear that they are continuing the exact same thing they were doing before. Hullaballoo, feel like starting an SPI? Is there one already? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I've had a lot of involvement with the article and, unfortunately, the IP. I've been the one who has reported the IP, and I appreciate the response and help. Despite the work I've already done on the article, it needs more, and it's hard to do in an environment of disputes that aren't even grounded in good faith. I was very close to too many revisions when Hullaballoo and another editor came to the rescue. Can someone please update this section if they open an SPI? If not, I can do it tomorrow. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't see a formal SPI, but Floquenbeam identified the IP with Jww047; note their comments at User talk:Jww047#blocking. It looks like a clear case on behavioral evidence, with only the named account and the IP involved. I'm not really familiar with the details; if Bbb23 is willing to open the SPI, they'll likely do a better job than I would. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll do it tomorrow, although I don't think I'll do a better job. I'm familiar with the article and with the IP in the context of that article. Until I saw Floquenbeam's comments (after the last block), though, I had no idea any other account was involved. Still, I don't mind doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And they're back, now editing as User:69.249.135.41. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll include that in the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Report filed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The second IP was blocked for a month. No action was taken against Jww047, perhaps because there's been no recent activity by the user, although the SPI admin doesn't say. The admin invites us to relist if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And Jww047 is now repeating the disruptive edits, in violation of the conditions Floquenbeam set for not imposing an indef-block on the account last week. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've relisted the SPI, but so far no result. I've also placed warnings on Jww047's Talk page, a lot of good it'll do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Look Needed at The Art of Video Games

    Some Please take a look at The Art of Video Games there are many IP and new users editing it Bentogoa (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Its to fast to revert Vandalism even by using Huggle Bentogoa (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoah, I went over to help out and I see it's sprotected but gotta hope this is not the start of some mass bot attack that can be turned on any article, if it is the entire wiki is going to have to go into lockdown, never seen anything like it. Egg Centric 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my...
    I don't think we should mark this resolved even though semi-protection is now in place (nine minutes after the report here, that's quick action). I think we need to figure out what on Earth is going on here. The IPs all appear to be different areas and people, so perhaps it's some left wing group that was insistent on some change in the article being made? If so, and if it continues, that article will need to be semied for a long time. CycloneGU (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a poor man's oversight on the article, sending about 184 edits to the "deletion zone"; the crapflood of vandalism has made the edit history virtually unusable. –MuZemike 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    disruption at Hockey stick controversy

    I have now officially run out of patience with our climate change team at the Hockey Stick Controversy article. I have raised two RfCs Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy#RfC:_Spencer_Weart_and_.27the_dedicated_minority_who_denied_global_warming_was_a_problem_prompty_attacked_the_calculations.27, Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy#RfC:_neutral_language_and_reliable_sources and these brought unanimous support for my position from four completely uninvolved editors, and in particular confirmed my understanding of the NPOV policy, but the climate change regulars refuse to get the point, are now edit warring to remove the POV tag while the dispute is obviously unresolved [77][78][79][80], tag teaming, and have now proceeded with yet more personal attacks [81][82]. I would appreciate a review of this situation. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the climate change sanctions, Alex and to some extent Pete Tillman have persistently pushed for promotion of fringe views in a tendentious manner, failing to provide references as required by talk page guidelines and promoting their own personal opinions that they seem to think override properly sourced expert views on the topic. Alex has resorted to two simultaneous RfC's rather than collegiate talk page discussions. Despite the RfC's being resolved by removal of a word disputed by Alex, he immediately edit warred to replace a POV template he'd added earlier. TS as an uninvolved editor removed the tag, as stated above, and Alex thinks this justifies his report to ANI. Looks like battlefield behaviour that has to stop. . dave souza, talk 15:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For background, the disputes raised by these editors go back to discussion started on 12 June following his deletion the previous day of properly sourced information from an eminent historian and relevant inline citations, with the questionable edit summary "remove irrelevant info for readability"[83]. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles in question are subject to sanctions. Any disruptive behaviour should probably be raised at WP:AE, the community by itself having been unable to handle the problems. --TS 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Case of censorship on an article or is it libel?

    Resolved
     – Boldly tagging; no admin. action required. CycloneGU (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Two members of a collections of Churches known as Calvary Chapel have been removing a criticism section on the article. That section was added by someone with an undisclosed POV against the churches. I have been in the middle of the two sides. I along with one other editor, were preventing the removal of some referenced material that called into question the authority structure of a few of the churches. The two of us have also been preventing the addition of material that is even more biased by the POV editor, although that was a year ago and entirely unreferenced.

    One of the editors brought the case up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-18/Calvary Chapel and just before the page was completely locked for editing by a neutral third party, that editor removed the material again. So now it's completely locked and the referenced material has been removed. Is there any way an admin could restore the referenced material while the issue of its removal is being discussed or should we leave it out? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Main concern is that that Mediation Cabal has some cases open for more than half a year and I don't think we should have to wait that long for a decision. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The common practice to edit a fully protected article is to make a formal edit request on the Talk page using {{editprotected}}. That's also what the tag says on this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Triple B. I do question why people from the church are removing information from an article on the church - that reeks of WP:COI. But other than that, there is nothing to do here. CycloneGU (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing in such a manner can be disruptive, and if it is, that is a matter for the administration. It appears they were edit warring and ended up getting the article locked. That kind of behaviour could warrant admins attention.--Crossmr (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin ErrantX and Anders Behring Breivik

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Admin action reverted - ErrantX was a little close to the issue to use the tools - all seems to have been in good faith, so back to editing articles, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anders Behring Breivik is the alleged perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, which happened approximately 30 hours ago. Of course, the global media and Wikipedia being what it is, we already have had quite a decent article on both the attacks and, until recently, the alleged perpetrator.

    Almost immediately after Mr. Breivik was arrested, an editor created an article on him. Within 12 hours of that, as those editors who frequent these noticeboards would no doubt expect, an AFD was started. A sysop snow-closed the AFD just four hours in, stating The article doesn't include unsubstantiated "hearsay and speculation" anymore; every statement is referenced with reliable sources. The motivation for the crime has already generated a lot of interest, and multiple sources have covered the attacker's profile in non-trivial manner. The nominator's rationale strong enough to initiate a discussion on merging this article with 2011 Norway attacks, but not strong enough to warrant a deletion. WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR are guidelines (as opposed to gospel), best treated with common sense and necessary exceptions. The article can be re-nominated for deletion after a few weeks, if the coverage of the subject doesn't persist beyond contemporaneous news. This was in addition to a couple of discussions on the talk page, which have concluded that it is appropriate to have a separate article on the alleged perpetrator for now.

    About an hour ago (five hours after the closure of the AFD), ErrantX redirected the article to the main one, citing WP:BLP1E. He revert-warred with a couple other editors, and after his third redirect, full-protected the article citing BLP violations (and presumably invoking WP:GRAPEVINE. While and after this, I attempted to discuss the matter with him ([84], [85]) but he refused to reverse himself. Bringing to ANI for review. NW (Talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I took these actions because I believe them to be in line with widesscale community consensus relating to articles of this sort, our BLP policy, notability criteria and a dose of IAR. WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT caution strongly against biographical articles for individuals who are part of (or notable for) a single event. In this case, a terrible event occured yesterday for which an individual has been arrested. I entirely agree we should name him, and detail information about him reported in reliable sources. However, he is not independently notable and detail not related to this event is not significant for us to report in this encyclopeadia. This is a community policy, agreed by consensus and almost always upheld.
    Article level consensus does not override community agreed policy, which in this case asks for any individual associated only with one event to be someone of a high level of interest; this is generally taken to mean he is reported about in numerous types of sources, not just news relating to the event. Many examples are cited as exceptions to this policy; most have the individuals featured in books written long after the event (showing continued interest in them as an individual). At this stage the content is best dealt with in the main article. My protection extends for 4 days, and my hope is that in that time emotions will have died down and any article can be discussed properly prior to forking.
    I do not consider myself involved here; I saw a policy violation, corrected it, and saw a problem emerging leading me to protect the article (as it is a BLP issue).
    I am happy to be told "this is a mistake", and for another admin to reverse the protection. However, I cannot in good conscience do so myself because I realise that it will be restored straight away and I do believe that this is a violation of our policy relating to living persons. My protection is for 4 days, and I have no intention of simply coming back and restoring it if the first thing that happens after that date is the article being restored, but I suggest that in 4 days a little more objectivity might be around the articles :) Even (and I don't often comment on my opinion of articles/people..) alleged scumbags should have our policies upheld for them. --Errant (chat!) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on the AFD closing... BLP1E is actually a policy, not a guideline (which is intended to be more strongly followed). --Errant (chat!) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is both a policy and a guideline, which is why it is confusing. The BLP1E part is policy, but then it also directly links to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, which is a guideline, and both have to do with BLPs. Really, the notability one explains things better and in more detail. SilverserenC 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving a direct link to the Merge discussion, so that it is clear that it closed as "No consensus to merge". The discussion itself, with the closing summary, interpreted WP:BLP1E and this article on the subject as being one of the exceptions explained in the second paragraph. Errant interprets BLP1E differently than the consensus, but that does not give him the right to go against it and enforce his own interpretation through move protection. This is utilizing his admin abilities to "win" an argument and it itself is against policy. I advise that the move protection is undone. SilverserenC 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Errant's logic and interpretation of BLP1E i.e. there's no notability of the individual outside of the event, but disagree with the way he has gone about it - there was no consensus to merge (yet), and protecting the move seems like a slight misuse of admin tools. GiantSnowman 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Exceptions are, well, exceptions and this doesn't fit any of the ones we usually see. Relating to the second paragraph; I am not sure I see how, one day after the event, coverage could be substantial and persistent. As I said; I think common sense here suggests waiting till the event becomes at least a bit historical. --Errant (chat!) 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)ErrantX, the only policy violation is you using your admin tools in an edit war. To ignore the fact the community has determined, at least temporally, that this article meets the exceptions set forth in WP:BLP1E - and these exceptions are in fact, a community-wide consensus included in WP:BLP1E and are also policy, as I and others have repeatedly explained to you. You seem to ignore this exception to focus only on the first part of WP:BLP1E. If you disagree with the community's consensus, go to WP:DRV or article talk, no need to blatantly misuse your tools. Also would an admin kindly remove the protection, as he has said he is unwilling to do it? Thanks in advance. --Cerejota (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether this is one of the articles allowed by BLP1E, or prohibited by it, is not clear, and saying it's clear doesn't make it so. Protection should be removed, and whatever the consensus is, it should be followed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no qualifying exception to BLP1E here. The individual is not currently an exception. The argument has been made that he will most likely be. Great, when that happens it can be split out, but currently BLP1E dictates a merge.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Errant's good policy enforcement. This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. If certain individuals want to change the policy they will need to get a consensus to do that first, but as it is written all I see here is a bold enforcement of it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E states "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". I think it is quite clear that the persistent coverage of this individual in reliable sources is firmly established. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Persistent? Yeah in the lifespan of a mosquito maybe.Griswaldo (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy says nothing about the timespan involved. Judging from the current reporting it is indeed persistent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, seriously, this is getting annoying. The second paragraph of WP:BLP1E is policy too. Stop ignoring its existence. The community interpreted it as applicable. Thus, the consensus was based on policy. SilverserenC 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Comment As one who has very recently had cause to review policies regarding such actions, I need to ask how this would NOT be considered a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Redirecting an article, and citing the need for such redirection as WP:BLP1E, is well within the bounds of reason, but to follow such redirection with full protection -- which is an admin-only function by definition -- strikes me as blatant misuse of the tools. Now, I do think ErrantX has a well-taken point in that Breivik is so far only accused of a crime, and under both WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR should only receive mention as a subsection of the main article regarding the event. However, that does not give an admin carte blanche to unilaterally protect an article he/she moved, merged, or redirected. Were protection necessary, the proper action would be to request such protection through WP:RFPP, and allow an uninvolved admin to make the call. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Protecting the subject requires protecting the page if people continue to violate the BLP policy. I see nothing wrong with that. Both actions are part of the same attempt to enforce BLP1E.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PERPETRATOR states: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Something that arguably applies in this case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to be clear, I didn't blindly do this. I checked the sources & coverage in light of that guideline. And all of it is contemporaneous and relates purely to the event. --Errant (chat!) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But you did it based on your interpretation of policy vs other editors (read the majority consensus) interpretation of policy. That is being involved and not admin enforcement against blatant violation of policy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • beyond contemporaneous news coverage. Since you copied it here I must assume you read it Saddhiyama. It is all such news coverage at the moment.Griswaldo (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is indeed (what else would there be at this point?), but it does devote "significant attention to the individual's role.". This is still a matter of interpretation of policy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • But you did it based on your interpretation of policy; no. I carefully weighed the material and arguments made against community policy, my experience in BLP and the vast majority of previous articles of this sort. --Errant (chat!) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're repeating yourself. I guess I will too. The consensus interpreted the subject to be one of the exceptions as explained in the WP:BLP1E policy. Essentially, the consensus interpreted the policy and decided that a separate article was warranted. Any individual acts against this is going against consensus and this interpretation of policy. In essence, going against policy without a backing of a new interpretation of it with consensus. So it was Errant who went against policy. SilverserenC 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate, there is more than one way to interpret our policies. Saying there's only one way is wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of anything else, User:ErrantX is clearly WP:INVOLVED here.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. I strongly dispute that. I am intensely careful about using my tools in disputes; I have worked (as an editor) on numerous contentious (and less contentious!) BLP's and have never, ever used my tools in relation to them, even in the face of what could be argued to be serious BLP issues. My actions here were to enforce policy as an uninvolved editor - the community !voted me as trustworthy enough to be able to review articles, material, actions and behaviour and judge when to employ the tools to the benefit of Wikipedia. This is a bold action, I agree, but I feel it is the correct one. I have to go catch a train; if another editor wants to reverse my actions, fine, but I think that community policy is correctly applied at this time. --Errant (chat!) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that's the way you see this, and I'm not out to play "gotcha!" over this or anything (read: I'm still assuming "good faith" here). It seems fairly obvious to me though, based on a brief skim through the history pages of the articles in question, that you're at least somewhat involved in the content issues here. I don't see anything so blatantly problematic as to require protection and overcome questions of involvement. There was, and is, plenty of opportunity to ask for other opinions at least (through use of WP:AN3, or discussion on one of the talk pages providing at least some support for tool use in this manner). Additionally, I think that extending the well considered "no harm to living people" rational to (very) marginal issues such as this damages the project in many ways, and actually works to undermine the core of the BLP policy.
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me note that Anders has now confessed to the crime. It doesn't have much relation to Errant's action, but it does relate to the arguments made here that are trying to continue the merge discussion. SilverserenC 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Errant's good policy enforcement per Griswaldo. Some users here really need to wrap their head around what notability independent from a single event means. An article talk page consensus cannot possibly override project-wide considerations and consensus, especially not in an area like BLP.
      Also, the merge opponents in the discussion SilverSeren desperately keeps pointing didn't even try justifying Anders Behring Breivik as an exception to BLP1E. They merely piled on IDONTLIKEIT !votes. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not true, and the majority arguments for keep/not merge/wait having based on the policy exception. You are misrepresenting a discussion you didn't participate in.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted... --84.226.158.100 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one. SilverserenC 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The event involving Lee Harvey Oswald didn't occur two days ago.  Chickenmonkey  22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An individual who was involved in one of the most high profile assassinations of all time, about whom numerous books and articles beyond contemporaneous news have been written. Yes, quite the same :) If this person had the same level of coverage I'd be adding to the article! --Errant (chat!) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot to note that it is the most high profile for America. Int he context of Norway, how do you think Anders will rate? SilverserenC 22:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the key word is "will"; it hasn't happened, yet.  Chickenmonkey  22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikinews is a great place for this sort of immediate reporting, I recommend checking it out if you haven't already. ErrantX has made a brave move and a sensitive consideration of WP:BLP - the content about the guy seems to me to sit well and be more policy compliant in the redirect location 2011 Norway attacks#Suspected perpetrator and a few days won't affect anything. Users seem to rush to these articles and upload any picture they find and push policy and guidelines to the limit of interpretation and beyond in support of creating the hot off the press article and start adding all sorts of editorial/speculative press content, this part of the wikipedia is not really created for such reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion is more supposed to be about the move protection and Errant's misuse of admin tools while being involved. SilverserenC 23:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what part of, within policy and guidelines it seems totally reasonable to me, you didn't understand. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of stray thoughts:
    1. Making a controversial change as a normal editor and then protecting that version of the article looks rather unpleasant to me; it looks like use of admin tools to insist that one's own editorial preference sticks regardless of what other editors think.
    2. BLP1E speaks with forked tongue; the second paragraph is policy just as much as the first. I'm not going to opine on whether or not other policies preclude us having an article on this person, but it's absurd to argue that somebody who kills a hundred people and earns worldwide headlines is absolutely non-notable. (How long a period is needed, between bomb and shootings, before they're considered separate events so that BLP1E is no longer used this way?). bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not unpleasant at all, its a sensitive interpretation of policy with a little bit of ignore all rules thrown in. I wouldn't have done it because I think that in such editing frenzies policy and guidelines are put more to the back burner and imo it is a fault in wiki policy that its not interpreted concisely and with caution in such situations and I commend Errant for grasping the nettle, I think experienced admins need to step up a bit more in such situations and call it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Breivik notable or not? It's difficult for me to interpret your text. And in what way is it a desirable feat of IAR apply if somebody *claims* to be following a policy but, in fact, that policy does not support their actions? bobrayner (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears clear to me that ErrantX violated WP:INVOLVED. The application of BLP1E is a matter on which the community has long been divided, with good faith and reasonable positions taken on both sides. There were several substantial community discussions involving the matter at issue at the time of ErrantX's action, which had not reached consensus as to policy application. There was no substantial argument that the article on the accused perpetrator otherwise violated WP:BLP -- that it was not well-sourced, NPOV-written, etc. In that case, there was no justification for summary administrative action, let alone summary action by an administrator directly involved in the controversy. Administrators have no special authority to decide the application of any important policy when the community has not reached consensus on it. There is no argument that the relevant content itself violated BLP, thereby placing it outside the scope of the ArbComm ruling that justifies some summary actions. Therefore, the matter should have been left for determination by community consensus, and certainly should not have been summarily resolved by an administrator participating in the underlying dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone doubted it happened in good faith, but that was not the objection. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • (Edit conflicted with the close, but still placing this because I wanted make a final comment of my own on this). Rob sums up my feelings on this nicely. There is a tendency to treat criminals with a lot less sensitivity than others; and this is by no means neutral editing :) This is an established problem with high profile current events; where we end up with a rash of poorly constructed content being fought over by editors - often with little regard for policy (except where it can be used to force in their content). I've written a lot more about this here, which you might find of interest. The idea of One Event is slowly coming to a head, I think, and there are a lot of articles that will come under intense focus in the next few days - my attempt to start any dialogue over it tends to flounder, though, because generally what tends to happen is that those arguing against the current policy are only interested in the one article. Perhaps that will change now? At the end of the day this person clearly fails the intent and language of BLP1E and One Event and the article is a product of NOTNEWS. My action was bold, true. But I do not feel it was a directly involved action (I admit, I am a staunch defender of BLP elsewhere). My stance is that the community agreed policy trumps article level consensus and that no argument has yet been advanced to meet that policy. It is my understanding that I was given the admin tools to judge situations such as this and take action to implement policy. If another uninvolved admin disagrees, well, then fine. Given the response above I think that right now this sort of action was a little too bold (and I guess I am sorry to have caused that issue), but encouragingly there are people here who saw it as sensible, or perhaps agree it was the right outcome but are resigned to the fact that it's not possible to impose our policy so directly. We can't progress if we don't test boundaries - this one seems to be squarely tested and obviously more work needs to be done on the policy. --Errant (chat!) 00:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I reading this correctly? Basically you're working up to causing a bunch of disruption in order to demonstrate a need to change policy? ...maybe this isn't so "resolved" after all. :/ Do we really need to go through another BLP related ruckus? (you know, there's this thing called WP:RFC that we have here... of course, that may not go the way you'd want without first mustering some support through whipping people into a moral panic about the issue )
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to re-assure, you are not reading it correctly. No intention to run off and disrupt anything! --Errant (chat!) 01:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, good to hear. It was just... you said: "The idea of One Event is slowly coming to a head, I think, and there are a lot of articles that will come under intense focus in the next few days" which sounds vaguely threatening, to be honest.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is some further ongoing discussion of the issue on WP:BLPN#Anders Behring Breivik.  Chzz  ►  00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree with your interpretation of policy (specifically, I do not see how BLP1E requires the article to be removed, and the day we use NOTNEWS to remove even the most high-profile current events is the day we commit wikipedia to being out-of-date, losing one of it's biggest advantages). However, I think we could mostly agree that there is some ambiguity in policy, and it's an ambiguity that's likely to provoke more drama in future. So, it would be good to take a little time out - after tempers have settled - to see if we can improve and clarify the rules, just a little. bobrayner (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An additional consideration

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    There seems to be an additional consideration here. This appears to be part of a larger... er, "movement"? which seems to have a goal of enforcing BLP1E to shut down biographical articles for people involved in current events. I personally think that this is a somewhat extreme reading of the policy (maybe "absolutist" would be a batter characterization?), and maybe we should discuss that. I note that "the usual suspects" are chiming in here and in at least one similar set of articles (namely: Casey Anthony and Death of Caylee Anthony, where Casey Anthony has also been turned into a redirect and protected [well, it was protected, at least]).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I support that re-direct but not this one. One is a pedestrian case of a mother allegedly killing her child, something that is so old and unfortunately common that even the bible has. Casey Anthony is not a notable perp. The other is the perpetrator of the worse act of terrorism in Norway during peacetime. This dude is a notable perp. Apples and oranges. Again, the problem is WP:INVOLVED blocking of the ability of the community - not just admins - being able to move consensus. It is imposing a view on policy without allowing consensus to flow. That is wrong, plainly. --Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm one of those usual suspects, but you'll notice I'm not on the side that you might normally expect me to be. Might I suggest that this meta-discussion be taken to a more proper venue like WP:VP or WP:RFC? NW (Talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that there's a similar discussion already underway on another noticeboard. With an eye towards lowering the already fractured nature of all of this, I'm just gonna hat the whole thing.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

    Would an admin re-close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka? EdJohnston (talk · contribs), an uninvolved admin, closed the discussion and was reverted by Ohms law (talk · contribs) here. The discussion among EdJohnston, Ohms law, and me is here. If the topic ban is re-enacted, please restore EdJohnston's edit at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=441118935"