Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[1] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational than the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I have relatives in the religion and am closely familiar with it. However, I do not owe any editor any such explanation. The claim that I simply try to support BlackCab is ridiculous because I've edited Wikipedia for several years longer than him. I have already provided evidence of AuthorityTam's improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Fazilfazil reply, who seems also quite frustrated, I would like to encourage both of you to assume good faith WP:AGF. I expressed my viewpoint of the situation on AuthorityTam' Talk page. User_talk:AuthorityTam#You.27re_maybe_not_aware_of..._.2B. However, Jeffro77 immediately started to reply on my personal message to AT, which I felt unwelcome. AuthorityTam do not answer so far on my post, although I assume that he perhaps read it. Originally, I wanted only notice him about some pages and summarize my viewpoint on the subject. But when Jeffro77 arrived, I tried to serve there as mediator and suggested solution. Jeffro77 felt the situation otherwise. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply when the editor has all but proclaimed that they are working in bad faith with a certain section of the Wikipedia community. Although, as I point out, my own interactions with AT have been nothing but cordial (in fact, receiving support from him) because I (1) don't work often in the area, and (2) haven't proposed anything that pissed him off or that got me on his "shit list", so to speak, based on the previous AN/I, he won't respond until this AN/I is over and has blown over, and he'll be back up to antagonizing Jeff and BlackCab (aka LtSally!) and this case will be back to AN/I (as, during the last AN/I, he ceased editing according to the same pattern). I have a spidey-sense that this will eventually be attempted to be escalated to arbitration. Fazil: stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This is not about winning debates or scoring points or editors' possible former religious affiliations or "WP:TRUTH", it is about building an encyclopedia. I find it incredibly hard to WP:AGF when faced with a series of posts that so clearly demonstrate the battleground mentality.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom: I don't know AuthorityTam much as we met rarely. In most situations I felt it similar like you. His conduct is focused on content and he is cordial. I do not expect it, but if he would like to persistently continue with this non-responding and later attacking style, some temporary restriction of editing 'Talk pages' could be reasonable. But this resumed ANI is not the case. Single edit is not adequate for any action. Thus the ANI should be terminate. // Fazilfazil: I would like to see more co-operation within JWs articles. Hence continuous speculations if User:Jeffro77 is apostasy or not are not useful at all. He specifically wrote here “I never formally identified as a JW”, which I believe to be the exceptional truth. This express is common for those who leaved from the congregation during Bible Study with Witnesses or meanwhile in state of being Unbaptised publisher. That is similar if he raised in JW family and not identified himself with it. In every case that is not important. Some editors may decide practice shunning on Jeffro and BlackCab (like AuthorityTam' 3rd person comments), but generally "division" of editors to pro-JW group and ex-JW or anti-JW group (such division of editors is invention by the two mentioned above and cause unpleasant contact amongst articles' editors). Hence I suppose that another talking on this matter is not useful. Here is the irony that BlackCab since his start on Wikipedia openly said so and never hide it. I respect him more for that. I also believe that both of them are sincere with their motives on editing Wikipedia. It is said that BlackCab at least tried to solve common issues which I raised, while Jeffro often simply dismiss all as irrelevant. However, despite of that, it is unlikely that they edit this topic if they want to be evil only. So some mutual agreement is hardly to do, but it is 'must have'. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim that AuthorityTam's "conduct is focused on content and he is cordial." If that were the case, this ANI or the last one would not have been raised. Specific statements made by AuthorityTam at article Talk about other editors have already been cited at this and the last ANI, and it is that behaviour that I explicitly requested that he cease.

I have never summarily dismissed any specific editor's comments as irrelevant merely on the basis of who made them. Where there is any ambiguity, I have always provided a reason why something is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

* Comment {Jeffro77 notified me} After reviewing the edit in question, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so appalling in the edit that it brings us here to yet another ANI. My only conclusion is that this must be some feeble attempt at character assassination or some ill advised smear campaign. Unless I am looking at the wrong edit, I find nothing offensive in AT's edit at all and do in fact find this ANI to be the more offensive occurrence. Here is the edit I think is being addressed, please let me know if I have the wrong one: :::"The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk)3:33 am, 29 April 2012, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)" I am completely at a loss for finding anything offensive in that edit, so, exactly why are we here if not just for the purpose of stirring the pot? Willietell (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Obviously, as User:Quinn1 post here, “this is no closer to a resolution than when it started.” and “but you guys are just going in circles here”. Is there anyone, (nonJWtopics' editor preferred), who can propose better solution than Quinn1 wrote here, simply “Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay?” [2] If AuthorityTam and all others involved in JWtopics will trying to assume good faith and not focus on persons, but on content, there will be fewer ANIs needed in future. Perhaps none. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If AuthorityTam ceases the behaviour, the matter will not need to return to ANI. What about the suggestions already made by User:JohnChrysostom (a "nonJWtopics' editor")?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself. I think that the editors involved need to make a more determined effort to work for the betterment of the article instead of seemingly trying to "pick" at one another and "goad" one another into an uncivil response. But that is just a personal observation, and I may be misinterpreting their intent. I will attempt to AGF. Willietell (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's only really been 'involved' to the extent that he's provided comment on the behaviour he's observed. It's unclear why you imagine JohnChrysostom to be 'biased', or what specific bias you imagine him to hold. He's not a JW, if that's what you mean, but then a JW wouldn't be unbiased either. He identifies on Wikipedia as a Christian, eliminating any supposed 'atheist' bias; I've seen no indication that he's a former JW, or that he has had any particular involvement with JWs. It seems that your definition of 'unbiased' is 'agrees with you'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm completely uninvolved (was browsing the AN/I threads for interest). I have no connection to the JW, and have never that I remember edited a JW-related article (if I did, it probably was a bio of a JW who happened to be in my own areas of interest). I propose an interaction ban between the two editors, a warning to both on the subject of neutrality in JW-related articles, a warning to both about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a warning especially to AuthorityTam about bad-faith accusations of bias based on another editor's perceived religion. The warnings should include an explicit mention of sanctions if behavior does not improve. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your impartial insight. I started official propose as you suggested. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had made my position clear, but it seems Jeffro77 (talk) doesn't quite understand my clearly stated position, thus I will state it briefly again, just for clarification "User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself." Notice that this did not require an opinion about who he chooses to agree with or how much involvement he has had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, but simply his participation in discussions involving the three editors in question as well as myself. If I can be of assistance in making my position any clearer in the future, please continue to let me know. Additionally, I don't feel that any harsher sanctions should be applied to AT than to any of the other two editors in question, because there are no innocent victims here. Willietell (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand your position. I just don't agree with you. But it hardly matters because another entirely uninvolved party just responded above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the last ANI, AuthorityTam is 'laying low' rather than acknowledging his part in causing problems and ceasing the behaviour. If, when he returns, he simply ceases the behaviour, it may not be necessary to return here. However, if no action is taken and the behaviour continues, the issue will be raised here again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin cherry stones]. "laying low" = "turning the other cheek"? I'd sort of been assuming that there's no smoke without fire and that an accusation against a JW doesn't need evidence to condemn. However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence [3] all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI. Is there any editor on ANI who wouldn't have responded in exactly the same way? At this point in terms of disruption it all seems to be coming from Jeffro, and although not an admin or an expert in JWism if this isn't WP:Boomerang, what is? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No. AuthorityTam partially quoted, without regard to context, a conditional statement I made three days later, in response to a suggestion by another editor. No such mention of 'banning' had been made at the time AuthorityTam made the claim. The actual sentence, in response to a suggestion by JohnChrysostom, that AuthorityTam partially quoted was "If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order." Support of the suggestion was also explicitly marked "Provisional".[4]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Interaction ban propose (with all consequences Jorgath offered) [5]

Support I support this idea, but I think it should not be permanent. I suggest tentatively for 3 weeks. If next conflicts will continue after end, it should be applied again for longer period. But certainly not forever. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - At the last ANI, AuthorityTam claimed that his disingenuous comments about other editors do not constitute 'interaction', and he made the claim that—while making such accusations—he was actually 'avoiding' contact with those same editors. AuthorityTam would therefore need to be told explicitly what any 'interaction ban' would include.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban means you don't talk to the other user, you don't talk about the other user, you don't comment if someone brings up the other user's name, and you stay away from editing the same articles just to be safe. In short, you behave on-wiki as if they and the articles they work on do not exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Question: Do you think is it appropriate to apply it on BlackCab? I suppose that likely yes, because many comments were towards BlackCab, perhaps even more than on Jeffro77. BlackCab also participated in discussion against AT. Since the start of 'first' ANI, it was 3-person dispute. I didn't participate on those previous disputes. Some editors could still think that 'tag-team' and 'JW watchdogs' and other similar expressions are corresponding to reality at Wikipedia. However, there are no innocent editors on each side. Please comment. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support as initial proposer. I didn't name a length above, but considering the apparent hostility I would say 6 weeks would be more appropriate for the initial ban. I also support formal warnings that continued behavior of this sort might also lead to topic bans, but no topic bans yet. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, the topic need a more balanced view, and AuthorityTam is an important contributor with unique knowledges about the topic and the ability to give the topics discussion a balance. This proposal is strongly favouring the most active users, as it blocks out opinions and contributions from AuthorityTam, as I consider less active than some of the other users mentioned. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported contains sanctions and notifications of 'both sides'. Thus I don't understand why this could be bad for articles or for other editors. Simply those 2 or 3 persons will neither edit JWarticles, nor talking about other user names etc. (see Baseball Bugs contrib here). I think other editors can substitute them for some time and it cool down emotions amongst editors. I realized similar valuation like observed JohnChrysostom, who wrote here that some action have to be taken at all cost. Otherwise this dispute will come back continuously many times again with no result. In ictu Oculi and Quinn1 observed it similarly. There is very likely WP:Boomerang on AT oposers' side. I am not against AuthorityTam. I simply acknowledge that some revision between involved editors is absolutely needed or comes back here soon. I can imagine that some spontaneous self-censorship/self-control of other JWtopics editors have to be applied, each on himself (=Others have to be silent, no comments on account of those restricted, during interaction ban of those 2 or 3 editors). I hope that other JWtopics editors could cooperate normally or better after end of restrictions and this would help overall ambience amongst editors. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot speak for BlackCab (who has been the target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour more often than me). But as far as I'm concerned, all that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs; if he is able to modify his behaviour, there should be no problem with him continuing to contribute to JW-related articles. If he is unable to alter his behaviour, he needs to cease interacting with editors he is unable to work with. The fact of the matter is that after disappearing during the last ANI, upon returning AuthorityTam couldn't help himself for even half an hour before continuing to impugn another editor (namely, me) at article Talk. Jorgath's suggestion is ambiguous about who other than AuthorityTam might be included in any sanctions. Of course, I have no problem with not interacting with AuthorityTam if he abides by any imposed interaction ban.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, when I said "both" in my proposal, I meant you (Jeffro) and AuthorityTam. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any interaction ban imposed on AuthorityTam would need to include BlackCab, who has been the primary target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour.

The terms of any such interaction ban would also need to be made clear, and would ideally not prevent discussion of article content. As I stated at the last ANI: "When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I am going to have to oppose at this time unless someone says something to convince me otherwise, because I don't really see anything particularly egregious in ATam's comment. I see only an editor defending himself against what he feels is a false accusation of being a liar and providing evidence he feels supports this. In a way I can see his point of view, that being, if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place? Later when the ban was proposed, both Blackcab and Jeffro77 supported it, whether conditionally or not, they supported it. I therefore see nothing sinister about ATam's posting those edits as evidence in his defense. That being the case, at this point, exactly what has he done that deserves some form of sanction? I see nothing! Who on this board would not like to provide evidence to the contrary if someone called you a liar? Usually, in such a circumstance, I don't justify such an accusation with a reply, but I am not like most people. Most people will reply, just like ATam did, with what they feel is supporting evidence. I personally think that calling a fellow editor a liar, especially when evidence can be provided to the contrary, borders on incivility, and a particular editor seems to have adopted this as his favorite phrase, using such an accusation against a number of editors. Perhaps, this incivility also needs to be addressed here. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to stir the pot. I very clearly indicated that I would only support a topic ban as a last resort (though it should be noted that the action you are opposing is not a topic ban), and I only made that provisional statement days after AuthorityTam made the dishonest claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell asks, "if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place?" I have already been fairly unambiguous about the result I would prefer.

• April 2: "It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise."
• April 8: "The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content."
• April 30: "It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages."
• May 1: "I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs"
• May 2: "The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs."
• May 6: "All that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs."

I think it would be expecting a bit much for an apology from AuthorityTam, but what I have repeatedly and unambiguously requested is that he cease his improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, should be for all 3 - an "interaction ban" would have to cover BlackCab as well as Jeffro77 and Authority Tam. Also difficult to see how an "interaction ban" can work when the only topic areas 2 of the 3 editors edit are in JW-space anyway. How can the three editors continue editing the same controversial article together and not "interact"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As I stated earlier, and as suggested by In ictu oculi above, it's unclear how an interaction ban would work while still working on articles related to the JW WikiProject. Despite claims by a couple of editors at the last ANI that AuthorityTam often has to 'defend' himself in a '2 against 1' situation, there are currently 2 regular non-JW editors and 5 regular pro-JW editors (AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Faktnevi and Willietell, 4 of whom explicitly identify as JWs) involved with the JW project. Without regular editors representing a non-JW view, articles would rapidly be affected by bias. If the terms of any interaction ban were to relate to editors not referring to other editors but not preclude content-related discussion (which I have suggested from the outset), I would Support. However, if a proposed interaction ban implicitly amounts to a topic ban for the only regular non-JW editors, then I would Oppose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)*
• Comment - Jeffro77 makes several good points here. I have a feeling that, much as most of us may not like this, that maybe WP:ARBCOM should be consulted. It seems to me that discretionary sanctions on any disruptive edits by any individual is probably the best way to go here, and ArbCom is really the only place that such sanctions can be enacted. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Hey guys, we're going in circles again!!
• Jeffro77 lied about me. I clearly stated many times that I am not member of Wikiproject JW, nor would be again. I was formerly member of the project, including completely Wikipedia (see my user page). Last year I was JWtopics completely indifferent! I started to edit there about 14 days ago when I realized what happened during time I was silent. I clearly stated that I am impartial in the matter. Since last year I gained deeper insight in many matters. Though I can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor. From the start I am trying to serve as mediator, because I don't think that unbiased means always JW-viewpoint even though sometimes it is the case. JW editors could trust me and non-JW editors could at least admit that I was not involved with disputes in which I try to mediate. Hence, in fact I am impartial.
• As I read from Jeffro77' and In ictu oculi' latest comments, there is a consensus that interaction ban should include BlackCab as well. I asked Baseball Bugs' on his viewpoint in this matter. (because he is absolutely impartial and I want not taking any sides).
• I also said that nobody here is completely innocent. Everyone should learn what WP:Civil and WP:AGF really! means. Bad faith accusations are still frequent as I read terrible discussion in JW article talk page yesterday (Grrahnbahr and Jeffro). I suggest that all current members should not to have a right to poll here (oppose/support etc.), because is evident that Jeffro taking sides and JW editors taking the other sides. (not surprising, it is very common as I am knowledgeable well of the ambience amongst JWtopics editors). So no result can be achieved in any case.

--FaktneviM (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you're "a member of Wikiproject JW" ('membership' of any WikiProject is generally informal anyway); I said you've been a recent regular editor of JW-related articles. If you are not a JW, I might have mixed you up with Fazilfazil, and if that's the case, I apologise.

I don't recall a "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr, and I've actually found him to be one of the more reasonable JW editors to work with. This doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but I'm not aware of any issues about conduct between Grrahnbahr and me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, I see that FaktneviM is the editor from last year who avoided discussion of his conduct at ANI by claiming his 'right to vanish' after he was reported by User:Danjel. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass (neither of the incidents were raised by me).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past, you've called me a "fanatic non-believer"[6], and said I'm "not so clever, as [you and another JW editor]", but "not fully stupid as well"[7]. You have also suggested in the past that you are a JW.[8][9][10] If you're not a JW, just what did you mean by linking the JW's translation of 2 Cor 6:14-18 and then saying that scripture meant "It does mean very close friendship [with non-JW editors such as myself] or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that"?[11]

You've previously claimed that my User page (which is and was composed almost entirely of User Boxes) is "preaching" and "propagandistic and hatred"[12] and "hatred and pride ... propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance"[13] (my user page at the time is here[14]).

You've also previously stated (incorrectly) that AuthorityTam has lied about you.[15]

You seem to have suggested here[16] that you consider the term "JW editor" to be a "slang idiom"; in case there is any confusion, the term "JW editor" is intended to mean a Wikipedia editor who is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your past behaviour, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you to claim that you're an 'impartial mediator'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that AuthorityTam is aware of the kind of inappropriate remarks he makes, because when he thought he'd offended a JW editor (specifically, FaktneviM) for a very minor misunderstanding (which actually was not even AuthorityTam's fault), he provided an elaborate apology, stating "I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing" (formatting from original).[17] If AuthorityTam applied this kind of contriteness when offending editors he considers to be former JWs, we would not be at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about personal attack and POV civil pushing from Jeffro. He responded non-logically and he assumed bad faith. He didn't consider my last edit at all. It is said that I remember it is very common. ((If someone other read my contributions here on this ANI and whatever else from past few months, could see what I have in mind. I just want to help here. I am ready to go away from Wikipedia again after solving this ANI. In some JW talk discussions I simply suggested everything what I observed after reading many last year edits when I was not involved. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas and User:Anupam

Hello, I am writing here to inform the reviewing administrator of a threat made against me here by Viriditas (talk · contribs). This individual has followed me to several articles in the last few months where he has not been an editor, including Big Bang, as well as recently Effects of cannabis. In addition, this individual has unfairly placed warnings on my talk page, stating that I have "plagiarised" material (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two), despite the fact that I always provide a source for my additions. User:Viriditas has been warned by other editors that his accusations are incorrect, but he still persists. In addition, the individual in question stated that I improperly used the rollback feature, despite the fact that I reverted my use of rollback because I accidentally clicked the rollback button and could not stop the rollback in time (I was informed that rollback is to be only used for vandalism on 22 April). I understand that User:Viriditas might be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but I think it is in the best interest of both of us that an interaction ban be set between us. I have tried several times to discuss issues with this user nicely but he is always hostile to me in his comments and replies. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and consider my request. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of that is true, Anupam. I have not followed you anywhere; if anything, your recent edits to the cannabis topic was a form of baiting on your part, as I was active on the talk page right before you showed up to disrupt the article with the same plagiarism you were previously warned about in regards to the Big Bang related set of articles. In other words, you were hounding and baiting me with more of the same policy violating edits, and I think you deserve a long block for it. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an attempt by Anupam to "head 'em off at the pass", as Viriditas notified Anupam that he would be filing an ANI report less than half an hour prior to Anupam's report: [18] aprock (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam mentions in his comment to which Viriditas replies that he was planning on seeking an interaction ban and I'm guessing that he just wanted to deal with the situation and so decided to escalate. I don't think he is the type of editor who thinks in terms of "heading them off at the pass." I've disagreed with Anupam a lot, actually I can't think of a time where I agreed, but one thing I can say about him is that he has always maintained civility and acted in good faith. I would be surprised if it was different here. Not commenting on the case in general, just wanted to throw this in. SÆdon^talk 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam pulled the exact same stunt against me: I notify: 06:28, 27 September 2011, he preemptively files 07:12, 27 September 2011. Given his history of disruptive editing, there is little reason to assume good faith here. aprock (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months. And V has been warned. Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? Before Viriditas can be blocked, there would have to be a showing that Anupam's enjoyment of editing has been adversely affected. While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked. In the meantime we should move to put in place a I-ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months."'

• Hardly : Viriditas↔Anupam.

"And V has been warned."

• By? Diff?

"Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? ... While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked."

• Try reading this part of WP:HOUND again "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (i.e. just to be a dick.)

With all due respect Counselor, this sounds a lot like you jumping to Anupam's defense with little or no supporting policy or evidence (and not for the first time Anupam↔Lionelt). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Anupam has managed to escape being blocked with their combative style of editing and their filing ANI grievances that never come to anything. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(I wanted to post this on Anupam's page rather than here, but he removed the thread there). I can't speak to the mutual charges of hounding (in particular, I've been unable to figure out what incident "I commented on the talk page and then you showed up to edit" was meant to refer to). About the plagiarism issue: first, I must note that in the cited instance of Gandalf61's objections against Viriditas' earlier warnings [19] I'm with Viriditas. Plagiarism applies not just to the appropriation of ideas and thoughts, but also to the appropriation of their expression. When somebody literally copies a substantial piece of text and then adds a footnote to the source, the footnote alone only tells the reader that the facts are taken from that source, but not that the literal expression is taken from it too. Thus, the use of the literal expression remains unattributed and hence may constitute plagiarism. Applying this to the "cannabis" edits at question here [20], we have a borderline case: taking over a literal passage without marking it as a quotation, adding a footnote, and then repeating the original literal text as an explicit quote inside the footnote, may be seen as narrowly escaping the plagiarism charge. It is, however, very poor academic writing. What's so difficult about writing a proper paraphrase instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What is difficult about it, is that Anupam refuses to do it. He is a serial plagiarizer. Simply look at his most recent contributions to Conservapedia.[21] They are all copy and paste jobs taken directly from books, without any quotations or attributions.Here is a recent edit where he plagiarized p. 70 in Kinnear 2011. He continues to do this on Wikipedia after being asked to stop. I don't see this as "borderline", it is his primary editing style and he refuses to stop. How many contributions has he made to Wikipedia that consist of nothing but copy and paste jobs without quotes or attribution? Yes, he adds citations, but the content is not his own nor clearly marked as that of another author. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a previous incident with Anupam in mid-February, which led to the proposal of a topic ban at WP:AN (for Anupam and Lionelt, commenting above). That report does not seem to have been archived properly, so here is a historic link.[22] Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How has anupam avoided a block for their long-term civil pov-pushing? (And apparent sockpuppetry last year) bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner, you have accused me of sockpuppetry two times for two different users (one being an SPA, and another being an administrator) and yet, despite me and administrator User:Master of Puppets encouraging you to pursue WP:SPI, you have never done so. I would highly appreciate if you could please stop making baseless accusations when you have not even pursued the proper venue for your claims. Once again, please do not try to frame me; if you have legitimate concerns, pursue them at the proper department. I will provide you with a quote that might help you understand why I feel so hurt when you speak this way of me: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” ~Warren Buffet I hope you understand my concerns. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we please deal with your accusations against me, first? You say I followed you to several articles, most recently effects of cannabis. Do you have any evidence? Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, viriditas, for distracting from the current problem. I agree that it should be dealt with. However, pre-emptive attack is nothing new here.

In response to anupam: I posted a very large collection of deeply suspicious diffs surrounding the Militant Atheism article. They were removed repeatedly. Other dissent with anupam's position was also shut down (although thankfully the community has now prevailed and the awful pov-pushing content has been removed). At that time, I was quite convinced that if I raised an SPI, that too would be shut down promptly; and I was very stressed due to the pov-pushing and the messages I was getting, so I didn't push the point any further. Would you like me to present the evidence again here? it seems like an appropriate venue. I'd be happy to offer a big stack of diffs for which sockpuppetry is the only sane explanation. Of course, if you could offer some alternative explanation, that would be welcome too. Calling them baseless accusations is just another lie; just another pre-emptive attack against somebody who has evidence of long-term problematic editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, have you looked closely at the diffs to see if the content was copied directly from cited sources without quotes or attribution? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; there does seem to be very liberal copying of text. (Sorry for the derail; my main concern was about pov-pushing, and sock-puppetry and canvassing to further that pov-pushing rather than the plagiarism per se) bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another issue: even after the problem was pointed out to him earlier in March,[23] Anupam is continuing to import non-neutral, polemical Conservapedia content into Wikipedia in extremely sneaky ways. For example, on April 11, Anupam copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article and added it to Wikipedia's article on Religion.[24] This content was plagiarized from the Mayo Clinic without any inline quotes or attribution. On the same day, he again copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article, but this time rewrote it, and added it to the Wikipedia article on Suicide.[25] Along with the previously mentioned problems with copying and pasting unquoted and unattributed material, the problem of Anupam continuing to add Conservapedia content to Wikipedia has not yet been addressed. The pattern that I've observed over several months appears to be obvious. When Anupam copies over Conservapedia content to a single article on Wikipedia, it generally gets deleted and his edits are reverted. However, he has discovered a way around this problem. Instead of copying over the entire article, what he has been doing instead is copying over small sentences and paragraphs, and then distributing (merging) Conservapedia's content to multiple articles so as not to draw any attention. In this way, the content which would otherwise not be appropriate for Wikipedia on a single article or topic is preserved by placing it in many different articles and topics in smaller chunks so as not to attract attention, and amounts to a sneaky method of proselytizing. This is what he did when he added off-topic material about "atheism and the suppression of science" from Conservapedia to Wikipedia. It was deleted, but Anupam salvaged it when nobody was looking by adding it in small chunks to religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• More recent plagiarism in creation and evolution in public education in the United States.[26] Anupam writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory." The source (Discovery Institute) writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation protecting the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory."[27] Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's compelling evidence in this thread that Anupam has problems with plagiarism/copyright violation and if this doesn't stop immediately he should be blocked. Because of his plagiarism, and because of the POV-pushing that Viriditas documents above, I find the charges of stalking unpersuasive—Anupam clearly needs to be monitored, and any problematic edits he made need to be ameliorated or eliminated. So if Viriditas has been checking regularly on Anupam's edits, that's a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that Anupam is either unaware of or unwilling to respect the differences in goals and standards between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Much of his editing gives the impression of searching for increasingly roundabout ways to import Conservapedia content onto Wikipedia.

His use of sources also seems ideologically driven in the extreme; the content about suicide and atheism is a classic illustration. The cited source states that "atheist" countries are "the healthiest and wealthiest nations on Earth", and that a country's level of atheism is correlated with higher development, lower infant mortality, less poverty, fewer homicides, and greater gender equality. The only metric by which atheist countries fare worse than "religious" countries is suicide rate. The authors conclude:

In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high levels of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on Earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy.

How does Anupam use that source? By going to suicide and prominently linking it to atheism. Note that while the source clearly correlates atheism with societal health, Anupam cherry-picks the one isolated factoid which correlates atheism with societal dysfunction and presents it in isolation. Note the cherry-picked quote in the footnote.

That's textbook: he's mining these sources to advance his personal viewpoint, rather than respecting the actual content and context of the source and presenting it appropriately. For another example of questionable use of sources, see this thread, where I presented my concerns in table form. Because Anupam is unfailingly civil, I doubt that his ideologically driven editing or questionable use of sources will ever result in sanctions. Certainly his civility has so far trumped all content-related concerns, as is typically the case here, but still. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• We need much better tools to combat this exact kind of intellectually dishonest but civil pov pushing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand quite well the difference between the standards in Conservapedia and Wikipedia, the former favouring a conservative point of view in its articles, and the latter favouring a neutral point of view. The sources I place in articles are academic sources and I always provide the original quotation upon which I base my writing. If one looks at the talk page on the Religion article, one can note that there are comments stating that the article seems to focus on the criticism of religion; adding a statement on the positive health benefits of religion, supported by a reference from the Mayo Clinic, is not POV pushing, it is adding valuable information to the article. Contrary to what User:Viriditas stated, I did attribute the quotation and even placed the quote parameter around the information I added (verify). Similarly, with the study on atheism, the source is from the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and it states:

Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

This is the information that I inserted in the article? I am not sure why that is POV pushing? User:MastCell, I understand that there were other conclusions about atheism in that reference but why are they relevant to an article on Suicide? I would appreciate if you pleased assumed good faith here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator User:Akhilleus, thank your for your comments here. I see that you have written that you do see problems with plagiarism in my work at Wikipedia. I want to take the time to humbly apologize before you and others here, including User:Viriditas, for doing so. I stand corrected and am sorry for my actions. This was never my intention, as I only desired to make a summary of the references I used, in order to meet WP:V. I never realized that my work constituted plagiarism. I firmly commit to using my quotation parameters and paraphrasing the content more than I have before. In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. I hope you all have a nice day. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In this edit Anupam clearly demonstrates an inability to see how his editing of the Suicide article represents cherry picking. While Anupam claims to understand that Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source of information, his inability to recognize his own POV pushing is very problematic. While he may be editing in good faith in an attempt to edit neutrally, this clearly demonstrates that he is not capable of doing such. Given that he cannot even recognize his disruptive editing, apologies are not going to solve the problem. Given how long this disruptive editing has been going on, with no improvement despite dozens of apologies, I think it's time to reflect on this editors role in the project. aprock (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the apology is very polite, but fails to address the important issue of biased editing. Given that this user has been here since 2006 and has a history of problematic editing (as has been shown in this thread), I'm not optimistic that he's going to alter his ways now. Perhaps we should discuss a topic ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. Every one of my edits uses a reliable source and contains verifiable information. If there is ever a content dispute, I discuss the issue on the talk page and open up an RfC to gain input from the community. I always accept the decision of the community no matter what. I was very sincere in my apology and I do not think this will be necessary. It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest, especially when I have been polite and willing to discuss my contributions. I would appreciate if you could please reconsider your comment. I would highly appreciate it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Using a reliable source is not enough when you use it to say the opposite of what is clearly the authors intention when read in context. Selectively quoting information in the way you have done is intellectually dishonest whether or not it is done on purpose. You must understand that if you wish to edit neutrally. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. Having read through this thread and gone over all the diffs I see we have a real problem here. The plagiarism is obviously a major issue, but now that we know about it we can simply enforce Anupam's future avoidance of plagiarism with escalating blocks. The wider issue is the civil POV-pushing. I guess we could consider a topic-ban, but the major problem I see with this is selecting a topic. Religion? Science? Topics that would conventionally be of interest to someone who edits Conservapedia? I guess the latter, but good luck defining it. We could community ban, and I wouldn't be unhappy with such at outcome at all, but it seems a shade harsh right now and I don't think it would get consensus anyway ATM.

• Perhaps some kind of probation and custom-tailored editing restriction? I guess we could form some kind of collective mentorship agreement, whereby a group of sysops get together to monitor Anupam, have the authority to impose blocks/bans/further restrictions on him, and who he can come to for advice? I guess the question with this is whether we'll get enough out of it to be worth the time.

• The other problem is we're not quite sure whether or not he has been socking and generally editing in bad faith. If he has been then we should probably default to community ban right now. Perhaps bobrayner could post the diffs and we can have a look and try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, or send them off for checkuser. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Moreschi, I would be happy to have a group of administrators monitor me and let me know if I have problems with my edits. Once again, any time there has ever been a dispute, I take the time to discuss it with others, and start and RfC to gain wider input. I always accept community consensus on the issue. I would be glad to work with a group of sysops on articles. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• From recent experience on Atheism it is apparent he is a (mostly) civil POV pusher. He tried to insert a cherry picked single analysis (it wasn't actually a study) which suited his POV to try and offset a meta-analysis of no less than 43 studies, 39 of which favoured the opposite conclusion (on religion and intelligence correlations). (There are many more in the literature too) Promptly another editor reverted the addition, asking him to take it to the talk page. Anupam reverted this editor twice: [28] even though being asked to specifically gain consensus. Then user User:Justice007 jumped in to Anupam's rescue with two more reverts with the comment of "What is than WP:NPOV ??." [29] [30]. (I note that Justice007 made no constructive comments beyond being borderline incoherent: [31][32]). Even though it was obvious that a single study had no due weight beside a meta-analysis. Anupam tried to justify including an uncited paper by citing, amongst others, the daily mail and "Christian Post", I think it's clear to any wikipedia editor that these won't help give it due weight. Anupam also hid the daily mail behind a link naming it as "The Telegraph": [33]. Here is the discussion: Talk:Atheism#Study. After only 8 and a half hours after his first comment he started an RfC (aren't RfC's meant to be discussed before being started?); this seems extremely premature to me in any discussion. During the RfC Anupam appeared to have decided that a particular adminstrator would close the RfC although it seems he was not aware of this promise: User_talk:Kuru#RfC_at_Atheism. Anupam also appears to not have grasped basic guidelines and policies, when i quoted WP:N verbatim [34], he replied with "I respect your opinion, but disagree with it" [35]. I find it very hard to believe that an editor with 15 thousand edits confuses notability with due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created numerous articles here on Wikipedia and have helped many editors out, in addition to improving the quality of several articles here. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation of my desire to discuss with other editors and conduct an RfC to gain input from the community. For example, stating that I intentionally labelled a Daily Mail article as an article from The Telegraph, despite the fact that I thanked User:IRWolfie for pointing out the error, is wrong and a clear attempt to defame me. I have been polite and respectful to everyone and am hurt by the lack of compassion and understanding here. If you or any of the others start a process to "topic ban" me, I would rather quit editing Wikipedia and retire instead. So please let me know if you follow through and I will be gone. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I said you were a civil POV pusher (the mostly was for the edit warring). Your thanks is fully consistent with being a civil POV pusher. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest moving toward starting up a topic ban discussion on AN. There seems to be some consensus that your editing has been disruptive and tendentious, both from this discussion and earlier ones. I have to concur, but think that it is no longer productive to discuss the matter here on ANI instead of discussing an actual topic ban on AN. In fact, the only thing holding me back is that there is no clear picture of what your topic ban should entail. I'm thinking an indefinite ban on all topics related to religion/atheism and controversial social and political issues, very broadly construed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think we can take Anupam's apology at face value. e.g. in the Kashmir article he had copy-pasted whole scale from sources and was informed of this issue on July 7 2011 when the content was removed (July 7). He did not respond to the warning, instead, he goes in adds it back to the article after a month (Aug 7). After a month, quite obviously copyvio cleaners aren't watching the article as they deal with way too many, so this one has now stood within the article until now. This is highly irresponsible behavior from someone and these sugar laced apologies do not justify it. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhai Sahib, the reason I restored the content was because I did not copy directly from the references. I attempted to put it into my own words so I was surprised when it was removed, which is why I restored it when I saw that it was gone. I do not remember even seeing the warning in the first place (my talk page has 384 threads on it). I am sincere when I tell you that I did not mean to do anything wrong. I think the problem here is that I need to do a much better job of putting things into my own words and I am willing to work on this. I guess that the information I added to the Kashmir article should have been put into my own words better, even though I did try to paraphrase the content. Instead of topic banning me, I would commit to working with a group of administrators who could monitor my edits and correct me when I am wrong. I would really appreciate a another chance User:SpacemanSpiff. I left a comment below that you might be interested in reading. Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Threats to quit aren't constructive either, and more importantly aren't binding. If a topic ban is to be initiated then that should happen regardless of whether Anupam sticks a {{retired}} up this week or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy collection of old diffs, just for background information about an earlier period of problematic editing

As requested by Moreschi. I compiled this list after other people raised concerns about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. This is a complete biography of turnsalso's life as an SPA on Militant Atheism. There are other SPAs; we may discuss those later, if you wish. 21:00, 27 June Turnsalso account is created at a time when anupam really needs support; somebody else has proposed splitting up anupam's essay. 21:37, 27 June Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue. 22:05, 27 June Turnsalso !votes "Keep; oppose split", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of wikipedia markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage! 22:14, 27 June After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extedned that courtesy to any other users in the last year. In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by Fountainviewkid, whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community. 01:35, 6 July Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session. 03:22, 13 July Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes. 08:07, 13 July Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote) 08:29, 13 July Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article. 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did. 18:49, 13 July Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. One minute after that, Anupam edits the article, then a few minutes later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso. 19:40, 13 July Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV. 20:03, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert. 20:16, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold. 18:21, 14 July Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits. 18:29, 14 July Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "revert until the issue is settled". 18:32 14 July Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits. 18:36, 14 July Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's timestamps. 14:14, 15 July Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry. 17:47, 15 July For turnsalso, reverting man jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns. 18:01, 15 July Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel. 20:19, 15 July Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval). 03:25, 20 July Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors. Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully opposes a little later. 20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra support of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; [36] 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam. 23:43, 18 August Turnsalso's directly support's anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth? Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping anupam's preferred wording All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes. IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. 16 minutes later, Turnsalso is there to support anupam. 19:33, 25 August After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, turnsalso supports. 21:04 25 August Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud. 23:27, 12 September Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam. 16:06, 16 September Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae. 18:01, 17 September Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word. 02:25, 20 September 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that Anupam has made. The revert is repeated at 02:47 and 02:53. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape the clutches of 3RR. 05:46, 20 September: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters. Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid 3RR. 16:31, 20 September turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason. 16:59, 20 September bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry. 40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam appears to acknowledge the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and bizarrely refactors other people's comments to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary acknowledges it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried. 18:51, 20 September Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier. 19:04, 20 September Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit. 20:06, 21 September Turnsalso opposes the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap. There are a handful other relevant diffs which I omitted for lack of time. For instance, the edits where turnsalso went to the talkpage of anupam's preferred administrator, to ask for their intervention, although turnsalso had never interacted with that admin before. To conclude: When anupam approached 3RR on the article, somebody else was always there to help - either turnsalso or a mysterious IP address steps in to make exactly the same revert. When anupam was in trouble on the talkpage, Turnsalso suddenly appeared to provide support votes when they're most needed. The editing times show a series of remarkable coincidences. Immediately after I raised concerns about sockpuppetry, Turnsalso stopped editing. The account has been abandoned; but it wasn't the first SPA which only edited in support of Anupam, and I doubt it'll be the last.

I shouldn't have to dig this up again, but claims that anupam made in this thread are totally incompatible with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, in your opinion, does this look like the work of a fanatical hobbyist with too much time on his hands, or a paid editor working on behalf of a special interest group? I ask, because when one talks about job losses and unemployment, the word "devastating" is used quite a bit. Up above, Anupum said, "It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest..." I found that wording very unusual, as in normal discourse, the use of that word is associated with the loss of one's paid profession.[37] I also find much of Anupam's so-called civility to be more artificial than natural in tone. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to guess whether this kind of editing is driven by personal interest or pay. That's a whole new can of worms and - though I respect you as an editor - I think it could distract from the main problem; bad editing is bad editing, regardless of what motivates it. Civility of long-term problematic editors could be viewed simply as an evolutionary artefact; if an editor pov-pushes and is rude/abrasive, they are strongly selected against in our current ecosystem, whilst somebody who pov-pushes and says "please" and "thankyou" is much more likely to survive each AN/I thread unscathed. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not go down this road. Viriditas' speculation about things being "devastating" is less than convincing. Viriditas, please don't sideline the discussion with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I think speculating on whether or not an editor is paid is pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a lot of coincidences. Well, I've been through the diffs Bob posted and I'm fairly well convinced that Turnalso is a sock/meatpuppet of Anupam, but what do others think on this one? Bob, you mentioned other SPA accounts - would you mind listing them here? Don't bother doing diff-by-diff analysis for these if you have better things to be doing, we can probably work through them ourselves. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Anupum has definitely been prone to plagiarism and at the very least of inadequate or misleading sourcing. I've pulled him up on it several times in the last couple of years (eg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_3#Quoted_material_not_in_quote_marks), so his claim here that he "didn't realise" is not credible. I can't speak to the other allegations. --143.52.87.123 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have participated in some RfCs initiated by Anupam, and as far as I saw, he behaved the way he claims, contributing in a civil manner to discussions, and not contesting their outcome. There were obviously disagreements during these discussions, but this happens in most disputes requiring a RfC. While I do not deny that Anupam has done some obvious mistakes previously, I nonetheless think there has been too much bad faith assumed about his actions, and a permanent topic ban looks far too harsh in my opinion, especially for someone who contributed on many articles, as well as writting new ones. I think Moreschi's suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, could be a more constructive solution. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Cody7777777, did somebody tell you to come here? Were you emailed or was there a message on another site somewhere? After all the concerns about canvassing, I'm surprised to see an editor come to this thread to defend anupam despite being semi-retired, with no talkpage notification, and having edited eight articles in the last six months. bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reached this discussion through Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard#User_attrition (that page is on my watchlist), which led me to User_talk:Anupam#Notice (where I saw the link to this discussion). Since I have observed Anupam's behaviour durging these RfCs, I thought could comment here about them. I do not see anything wrong with that. And to be honest, I I would also have been curious to know how some other users (who support Anupam's banning) have reached this discussion. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved with Anumpam on a number of articles over the past year, and this sort of behavior comes up every time. He clearly has an ideological goal to motivate his editing here, and it is clearly disparate to the aims of wikipedia. He plagiarizes. He exhibits disruptive IDHT behavior. He cherry picks sources, claims sources say things they don't, and uses sources to support controversial statements which are entirely irrelevant. He lies about previous editors actions, consensus, article content, and sourcing in the presumed hope that editors unfamiliar with the history will take his word. Most infuriatingly, however, every time he gets stuck in a rut, there is a sudden influx of editors who rush in to support him. It's funny, because I was planning to mention Cody777, only to find he'd commented just before I hit edit. Check his contrib history - at least half of his edits in the past year have been to articles involving Anupam. All of them have been articles he wasn't involved with previously (Big Bang, Atheism, Militant Atheism, MOP's talk, here). Anupam has a posse of editors, like Cody, Lionel and Turnsalso, who pop in to support him in contentious issues, which includes disruptive POV pushing his conservative, religious agenda. There's 5 to 7 others, who I won't name.

A few of his group are great contributers elsewhere, which makes sock-puppetry unlikely. We could file an SPI, but I also don't think Anupam is careless enough to have used multiple accounts from one IP. I think this is a case of meatpuppetry; users are being recruited either through email, personal contact, or a private forum. This behavior is disruptive for numerous reasons, including the often unmentioned issue of editor retention. Anupam has driven me away from numerous areas of the project very directly, and decreased my editing and motiviation to continue editing anywhere. I'm sure I'm not alone. Allowing this behavior to continue drives away productive, actually collaborative editors. That he says "Hope that helps", apologizes without understanding the issues or changing his behavior, threatens to retire to avoid sanctions, or what-have-you, should in no way be taken into account when determining if sanctions should be imposed. I'd like to see this handled, finally... after all the ANI threads, drama and disruption, we need to deal with this and move on. Can someone post a formal request for sanctions (whatever those may be) here or at AN? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to assume any bad faith, but in my opinion this is beginning to look like some sort of witch hunt. Regardless, what you want to believe I have seen his RfCs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy.

Regarding the "Militant Atheism" article, I had actually edited on that article's talk page as early as february 2010, before Anupam even started to edit on it.

Most of my interaction with Anupam began during the 2011 "Militant Atheism" debates, where we shared similar views (but as I already said, I was interested in that article from an earlier date). Regarding, the other two RfCs about Big Bang, and Atheism, I do not deny that I might had also been influenced by the fact that there were some people involved (on both sides) who also participated the previous "Militant Atheism" debates, but I have not entered those debates just to add more !votes, most the time I tried to search for sources related to these respective topics, to help their improvement. For example, you can check my comments from the Big Bang RfCs[38][39]. But regarding the RfC on "Atheism", I admit I was unable to do any serious contribution, despite my initial hopes.Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of Anupam's disputes in the last ~6 months include Militant atheism, Big Bang, Atheism, Christmas Eve, MoP's talk, his previous ANI case, and this ANI. Both you and Lionelt were involved in all of them. In 6 of those 7 cases, you arrived at the discussion after Anupam was 'in trouble' without any previous involvement, ever. Five of those seven appear in your last ~25 edits, the remaining 2 in your last 50. The idea that you and Lionelt and all the others just happened across all of them on your own is kind of silly. The two of you are not the only ones magically appearing, either, or even the best examples in some cases. I don't think your editing rises to the level of disruption on its own, which is why you're not the subject of this thread. However, Anupam's magical "vote for me" and "save me from 3rr" posse is at issue here, and you are unfortunately involved in that crowd. That behavior, along with the plagiarizing, POV pushing, misrepresentations, etc, all needs to stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out to the administrators that many of the individuals here who wish to censure me participated in this RfC and took a position different than myself in the content dispute. There was a legitimate position who voted to keep the article intact, which is being underrepresented here. I would kindly ask the administrators to please look at this RfC and realize that some of the individuals at this ANI thread have taken a position in a content dispute, in which I took the opposite position. Yes, I did not use any sockpuppets and I have yet to see an actual checkuser performed to verify that I am not any of the SPAs (which participated in both sides of the content dispute). For example, Jkhwiki (talk · contribs), Obhave (talk · contribs), Runirokk (talk · contribs), Devilishlyhandsome (talk · contribs), et. al are single purpose accounts who took the same position as Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), and ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs). At the same time, there were SPAs that voted to keep the article, including Jacob800 (talk · contribs), Turnsalso (talk · contribs), Troisprenoms (talk · contribs), Jwaxman1 (talk · contribs), etc. User:Mann jess is quick to say that User:Cody7777777 appeared at the Big Bang RfC, which was listed at WP:XNB and the Religion and Philosophy RfC list, but denies the fact that his compatriots here, User:IRWolfie-, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:ArtifexMayhem, along with himself (User:Mann jess) all magically showed up at the article, picking the exact same Draft, and yet, are the same users who are working together to censure me. Individuals, such as User:Dominus Vobisdu hope to remove me from editing articles so that they can censor information in articles to fit their interpretation, such as this recent edit. Once again, please consider this before making any decisions. It is very unfair that one group of editors target me and try to ban me for holding different views than them. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang is an article that I've edited previously; it's been on my watchlist for a long time. AFAIK, the same is true for all the other editors you listed beside my name. It is not true of Cody or others who magically show up in all your disputes, just when you need help. Here's a great example; I came here only after being notified. Lionelt and Cody, on the other hand, seem to just have noticed the discussion, even with Cody being semi-retired. That happened on Militant atheism too. It also happened on Atheism. It also happened in your previous ANIs. Attacking my character on the basis that we've been in previous disputes is ridiculous, considering I'm commenting on your behavior in those disputes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Obhave is not an SPA. See Special:Contributions/Obhave. You also missed quite a few SPAs magically showing up to vote keep on the other end. Trying to equate the two is grossly misrepresenting facts, yet again...   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is it a mystery that I turned up at the RFC on the Big Bang theory? I had it in my watchlist from the previous RFC and you posted it at the wikiproject physics talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Big_Bang_RfC_.28Part_II.29 which I look at, I even commented on your post at wikiproject physics for the first RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_February_2012#Big_Bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thankyou for remaining superficially civil. However, you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented sources, plagiarised, ballot-stuffed, and generally cheated - whatever it takes to push your message. You have got away with it for a long time but that kind of editing has no place on en.wikipedia. This crusade is a net negative to the encyclopædia. Essays like Militant Atheism may be welcome on conservapedia, but not here, because en.wikipedia requires truthfulness and neutrality. Some good editors have been driven away; others have wasted many hours trying to mitigate the pov-pushing. Since you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or fix the problem - and instead have the chutzpah to pretend that there's a conspiracy against you - I think it's time to propose a topic ban. The last time this was tried, the thread was shut down 2 hours later; I hope that won't happen again. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I remain civil because I prefer to engage in friendly dialogue with others, discussing content rather than attacking individuals. If I wanted to prove a point with the Militant atheism article, then why would I write an entire section criticising the term in that article. I have repeatedly explained that every source in that article was from an academic book or journal, thus fulfilling WP:NPOV. There is a reason that I placed every single quote from the original book or journal in the quote parameter of the references - to demonstrate that these are not my words, but the words of the authors who wrote them. An administrator on Conservapedia interpreted my edits similarly to the way you do, but did you see my response to him? It is evident that I am not the one here who is pushing a message. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you added back plagiarized/copyvio text after being told not to both on your talk and in edit summaries? And of course, you didn't respond to the warning either. This canvassing and plagiarism (I'm not commenting on the POV bit as I haven't spent any time at all on those articles) been going on for far too long, that I'm sure the topic ban below is too narrow to be of any use. —SpacemanSpiff 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to add that I find Anupam's approach to dispute resolution to be problematic as well. In this edit: [40] Anupam demonstrates that he's also willing to plagiarize wikipedia itself, inserting articles wholesale into Conservapedia with no attribution. Compare versions: Wikipedia, Conservapedia. When community consensus leads to an article being deleted, the appropriate response is not to export the disputed content, unattributed, to another site. aprock (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Details of Anupam's WP:OWN - here and here, with details of diff and complains of multiple editor. The WP:OWN of Anupam also resulted in many editors left editting. But the Anupam's preferred admin didn't take any action. -Abhishikt (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As a result of the long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on - I propose that anupam is topic-banned from editing on atheism or religion, broadly construed. Alas, this seems to be the best solution to a long-term problem, because other attempts to help anupam edit honestly have failed.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (Edited to add: Considering that anupam has at length refused to acknowledge any of the problems and has framed it all as a partisan POV dispute, I now realise a community ban would be a better option if possible. However, I'll leave this proposal here as a topic ban has much more obvious support; if the closing administrator feels there's not enough support for a community ban, I hope a topic ban will be accepted as the fallback option, hopefully including Dominus Vobisdu's proposed extension.). bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed Extension: I propose that controversial social and political issues be added to the topic ban. The ban as proposed is too narrow, and Anupam has been disruptive in basically all areas that would interest a Conservapedia editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension above. It's pretty clear that Anupam will always be a disruptive editor in the areas included, and that POV pushing, misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus, filibustering, and meatpuppertry are fundamental elements of his editing repertoir, which is clearly calculated to consume the time of editors who disagree with him. His apologies and promises to improve can't be taken seriously because of his persistent dishonesty. Actually, I'd have nothing at all against a community ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Anupam is an valuable contributor with a clean, unblemished, block-free record. The plagiarism issues need to be dealt with: but not with this Draconian response. The best method for dealing with this is specialized mentoring tailored for this issue, and escalating blocks. Plain and simple.

The gallery of users who have lined up here to crucify Anupam for the most part are those who were on the losing end of a content dispute. ANI is not a place for settling old scores. We all have a POV and we don't topic ban people who don't share our POV. Anupam wins content debates the old fashioned way: with sound and polite reasoning, and when all else fails RFC. This is nothing more than a crucifiction: an attempt to censor an editor who has successfully been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV. I pray that the community will not allow this group to drive away another veteran editor.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

From my experience recent experience on Atheism Anupam tries to win content debates with some light edit warring and then a talk page discussion trying to push obviously undue material that suits his POV by starting frivolous RfC's at the drop of a hat (as you say, he's been an editor for 7 years, kind of hard to believe he doesn't know the policies and guidelines). Also, how could a 7 year veteran be still plagarising? (and no, I wasn't on the "losing end" of the debate). You refer to "rampant pro-atheist POV" and "anti-Christian vandals". You claim Anupam is editing Atheistic articles from a christian perspective. Editors should not be editing atheist articles from a "christian perspective" as you put it, they should be trying to be neutral [41]. If an editor said there were going to edit Catholic sex abuse cases from an "Islamic perspective", I'd clearly be worried about their bias as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring????? He has a clean block record. WTF are you talking about? These are exactly the kind of attacks that are representative of this entire farce masquerading as a Topic Ban Discussion. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, honesty is not optional, it is required. Anupum has received numerous warnings from admins. For example, he was warned by EdJohnston in March 2010.[42] He was warned about his edit warring in September 2011 by admin Wifone[43] and admitted to edit warring in November 2011 in another incident where he was warned yet again by admin Wifione.[44] Additionally, he's been constantly warned by the user community, for example by Griswwaldo and Tryptofish in March 2011,[45] and by multiple users over many years.[46][47][48][49] So for you to question this, Lionelt, is indicative of a larger problem. Just because someone is civil doesn't allow them to flagrantly violate every major policy and guideline. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Anupam has never been blocked in 7 years. The incidents you cite, one of which was not EW but tendentious editing, for the most part were not egregious, were resolved to the satisfaction of the involved admin, and in totality do not justify besmirching this editor's reputation with the label "edit warrior." – Lionel ^(talk) 06:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice Chewbacca defense. You deny he's been warned by multiple admins and editors about his persistent edit warring because...he's never been blocked? Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're opposing on the grounds that a block is more appropriate, then we can do a block. A lot of editors have said they support an outright block, rather than second chance with a TB. If, on the other hand, you're opposing because Anupam has "been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV", then I think that speaks for itself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, I would be open to a temporary block, much more than an indefinite topic ban. That being said, if it is the community's desire (right now there are also several votes opposing a ban), I will follow through with a topic ban, but I would like for the topic ban to list a specific time period (e.g. six months, one year, two years, etc.). I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, by "Christian perspective" I was referring to the Wikipedia precept that "Everybody has a point of view" WP:NOVFAQ. Sometimes when an editor is very closely aligned with the subject in which they edit they develop tunnel vision. In these cases it is helpful for an "outsider"--as it were--to help make the content neutral. I.e. a fresh set of eyes. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, indefinite does not mean infinite. An indefinite topic ban could be lifted at any time that the community felt you had demonstrated a willingness and ability to edit productively in these areas. Considering the level of disruption here (enough to potentially warrant being indefinitely community banned), I don't think putting a timer on a a topic ban is a good idea. Editors with such a timer often just "wait it out", without learning to edit productively. You're welcome to propose a definite topic ban, but I have my doubts the community would support it at this time. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that would help. How can I "learn to edit productively," as you state, without gaining experience on those articles that you deem that I edit problematically? I am confident that if this proposal (which is not neutrally worded at all) passes (which it might or might not), many of the editors who voted here will be unwilling to let me edit in this topic. For this reason, I think this proposal should specify a time, even if it is one or two years. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes.... if the topic ban proposal passes, you will not be allowed to edit in the topic. That's the point of a topic ban. If you demonstrate you can edit productively in other areas, you may appeal the topic ban after some time has passed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow where that quote is from, it's not in WP:NPOVFAQ. What I do see is a section on Dealing with biased contributors. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. I have already expressed most of my reasons in this comment. Since he is an editor who also has done many useful contributions (including new articles), I don't think it is fair to assume he cannot become a better editor, despite his previous mistakes. And the claim that his civility is superficial looks more like a bad faith assumption in my opinion. As I said before, I also think Moreschi's previous suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, is a more constructive solution, since Wikipedia should not throw away editors with good potential. But if there is a ban, it should only be temporary. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So you are okay with topic ban? -Abhishikt (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I stated quite clearly I oppose the topic ban proposed here. And it should have had at least a time limit specified.Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on religion, atheism, and politics related articles, broadly construed, per discussion and evidence presented above. There is more than enough evidence for his civil POV pushing, plagiarism, misuse of sources and deception. I'm not sure there is enough evidence for sockpuppetry, but there are strong indications. If anyone is still unsure about his true intentions, please take a look at his conservapedia talk page.--В и к и T 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. You can see my response right there. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor has a clear POV as evidenced the continued plagiarism and misuse of sources. MarnetteD | Talk 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support Anupam has always been one of the most polite people I've encountered on wiki. Many people here seem to believe it's a ruse for civil POV pushing. I don't agree, I would rather AGF on his end, especially since I've seen what bad faith religious POV pushing looks like. I don't need to say any names, most of the editors commenting above could probably pick someone from memory and they'd be a good enough example. With that said, a lot of the above commentary and diffs do illustrate what I would consider to be problematic, and so I have to support a topic ban for the good of the encyclopedia. No prejudice to a removal of the topic ban if Anupam can demonstrate at some point in the future that he understands the concerns expressed by other editors (especially the idea that almost nothing on Conservapedia is worthy of being part of WP, and that WP serves an entirely different purpose), but I think a 3-6 month break in the meantime will be necessary. SÆdon^talk 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, the problem is that this topic ban thread does not specify a time frame. If it is the community's desire, I will follow through with a topic ban, but it should specify a time period, three to six months, one year, two years, etc. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I would support 3-6 months; it will be up to the closing admin to decide the length after considering the arguments made in the proposal. It's not uncommon for users to express multiple opinions on ban length, it's just part of the process. SÆdon^talk 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension - I don't really think this guys is fooling anyone any more. I also would have nothing against a community ban. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Cody777777's comments - and as per the users article creation list - the user has a large percentage of wiki beneficial contributions - a less extreme restriction is far preferable - Youreallycan 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC; I respect your opposition; you're haven't been mired in most of the previous disputes on these topics so nobody could accuse you of being partisan. However, if I remember correctly, you've made great efforts on BLP and this is close to your heart; how would you feel if problematic editing touched on BLPs too? For instance, going to the Breivik article and adding "Breivik quoted liberals like Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins" as part of a crusade to prove that Atheists are Bad People. Personally, I think there have been enough second chances; the BLP violations should be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support On the topic of Atheism related articles broadly construed. Anupam is clearly unable to leave his own bias at the door and try and edit the articles from a neutral point of view and has been involved in POV pushing etc on these articles. That he edits these articles from a "christian perspective" as Lionelt put it, is worrying. I don't edit christianity articles from an an atheistic perspective; nor should any editor. I would suggest a temporary block as well to stop the "never been blocked" mantra which keeps appearing at these ANI discussions. Outside of this, I am unsure how serial plagerism (even after warnings) can be dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The partisan aspect of all the main contributors in this area is tangible , not just this user but all of them - removing one user from the topic area when all of the players are equally partisan is detrimental to the neutral position. Youreallycan 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being partisan when I encountered Anupam on Atheism, Editors should have a reasonable expectation that other editors won't POV push, "I'm not the only one breaking the rules" isn't a valid defense. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a strong COI amongst many of the contributors there - basically all the interested users are conflicted - they are all biased - restricting a single one is a biased partisan desire - Youreallycan 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you believe other editors have broken the rules bring that up in a separate ANI filing, other than that it's mere speculation. Other editors breaking rules or not has never been a defense before and it should not be now for your friend Anupam from what I've seen (it just results in both parties being reprimanded). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- enough already, it's perfectly obvious that if this isn't done the disruption will continue unabated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per IRWolfie. Editors should edit from a neutral point of view, not with a bias to balance some other percieved bias. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with a BLP example: In this addition, sourced to a partisan opinion piece in a partisan tabloid, Anupam links Richard Dawkins to Anders Behring Breivik and the Unabomber, and doesn't miss the opportunity to call Dawkins a "militant atheist". In reality, Breivik wrote about Dawkins unfavorably. Prolog (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Continued and unrepentant plagiarism and edit warring is not excused by hollow apologies. Given that this problematic behavior extends outside the proposed topic area this will give Anupam a good chance to turn over a new leaf and edit collaboratively with the community in areas where he has in the past been disruptive. aprock (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Edit warring???? I demand that you strike. He's been here 7 years and never been blocked. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So if an editor isn't blocked, that means he isn't edit warring? That's a strange definition. Editors are typically only blocked for 3rr, which Anupam is very careful to avoid. He edit wars constantly, however. There are at least a few examples in this thread alone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension, but prefer community ban. My overwhelming preference, of course, is that Anupam understands that the community finds his behavior unacceptable, and begins editing productively across the site. However, I don't have any confidence that will ever happen. His repeated misrepresentation of sources, article history and other editors in an attempt to manipulate consensus is unacceptable on any article. In previous ANI cases, I wanted lighter sanctions imposed, but I have since lost faith that they will be sufficient. I don't put any trust in the content he contributes to the site due to his extended history of sneaky pov pushing and meatpuppetry to influence consensus, and it's unfair to expect multiple other productive editors to scrutinize his every edit while we give him yet another trial run. That said, a topic ban is better than nothing, and maybe it'll turn out that I'm wrong. Very unfortunately, I doubt it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Wikipedia. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who wish to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety, Qaisar Bagh) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators, rather than being topic banned. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not a content dispute as the numerous diffs have shown throughout this discussion. I did not comment on the Militant Atheism RfC, nor have multiple other editors in this discussion. This is again more deflection from your own editing pattern. What Prolog showed is pretty damning. Seems like he didn't comment on that RfC either. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, If plagiarism was the only disruptive conduct, this might suffice. But the problem extends well beyond simple plagiarism. Your failure to acknowledge your other disruptive behavior (ignoring multiple notices and warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, canvasing, misrepresenting sources, etc) only points to further disruptive editing down the road. Your claim that you "accept the decisions of the RfCs" is contradicted by the fact that when the Militant Atheism RfC went against you, you immediately exported the content to Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=922868&oldid=909277. Adhering to the letter of the RfC while simultaneously contravening the spirit of the RfC is exactly the sort of disruptive editing that needs to end. aprock (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Calling an veteran editor with a clean block record an edit warrior is false, and a personal attack. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, it is, indeed, unfortunate that you will be unable to edit your preferred topic. However, understand that there are two options on the table right now: a community ban or a topic ban. If the community decides that a topic ban is preferable, that says we want you to stay and continue editing, and that if the problems outlined here are addressed, then maybe (at some point in the distant future) you can get the topic ban lifted and continue editing these articles again. Continuing to apologize for only one aspect of the thread won't help matters; we need to see your behavior improve, which is an opportunity you would be afforded with a topic ban. I have my doubts that will happen, but I'm hopeful that I am wrong. Please accept that the community views this behavior as disruptive, and stop recruiting editors off-site to post in your discussions, double-check that sources say what you're claiming before adding them, stop cherry-picking from the literature to support an ideological agenda, stop close paraphrasing, and try to hear what other editors are saying, and accept those contrary opinions without trying to force an RfC, votestack and manipulate consensus. If you can do that, we want you here. If you can't, then that's not behavior we can accept. Being honest about your intentions and clearly indicating what communication/canvassing is going on off-site (as well as putting an end to it) would go a long way. Short of that, it's hard to see these issues clearing up on their own.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, I am not guilty for half of those accusations that you list. I always try to discuss things with others and do indeed accept the community outcomes of RfCs. If the community does feel a topic ban is necessary (although I believe that any problems can be easily remedied by working with an administrator), I would appreciate a specified time: one year, two years, five years? However, proposing an indefinite topic ban is not helpful. Thanks for taking the time to read this. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you again claim to "accept the community outcomes of RfCs" in a thread where it was clearly illustrated that you don't. It's difficult to imagine a positive outcome when this level of denial is demonstrated. aprock (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed accept the community outcome for all RfCs. Take the most recent one for example, here. Did I ever try to push the information back into the article or did I leave it as is? This is representative of my behavior at Wikipedia - to discuss disputes and gain input from the community if there are disagreements. To ban me for this is what is really sad. Have a nice day, Anupam^Talk 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is representive of your behaviour? So I summarise then that you typically edit war before making RFCs without discussing them first, and then refuse to close the RfC when consensus is very clear, and then make an invention that a particular administrator will close the RfC. This is your standard practice? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, the funny thing is, even if you were only guilty of "half" of it, as you claim, that would still rise to the level of a community ban, IMO. That said, strong evidence has been presented in this thread of each one of the things I asked you to stop doing. Your big apology above resonated with me, which is why I reached out and suggested you stay on the site and work within the confines of the TB. That you've switched back to denying everything and accusing everyone of wanting to censor dissenting opinions (below) quashes any sense of sympathy I had. We're right back where we started: You're being disruptive, lots of editors have warned you about it every way they know how, and you still won't accept there's anything wrong. This indicates you'll continue your problematic behavior, and we can't have that. These responses of yours are why I supported a community ban, and until you're able to hear criticism and edit collaboratively, that's IMO the only solution that will actually work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support for ban for Atheism, religion or controversial topics. Reasons: Anupam has shown issues of WP:POV, WP:OWN multiple times in many atheism/religion/science related articles like Atheism, Militant Atheism, Big Bang, Creation–evolution controversy‎, Existence of God‎, etc. He often refuses to get to the point during discussion - an example of it. We should not forget that the fact that he is a regular Conservapedia editor. When Militant Atheism article got removed, he moved the entire article as it is to Conservapedia and it was made article of the month there. This shows how biased his POV is for atheism/religion/science related articles.

His recent 3RR incident, where I mentioned that his POV pushing takes lot of effort from other editors, resulting in wastage of hundreds of hours of WP community.

Anupam complained about unfair warnings to him, but he himself give me such recently here. Unrelated dubious thing: Anupam deleting notice from his talk page diff.-Abhishikt (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on User:Abhishikt's recent participation in an RfC. He states: "The discussion in above section is pretty clear that this is WP:UNDUE and cherry picking of sentences to push POV for showing that religious people are not stupid/less educated." He also, like most of the editors here wishing to ban me, held the position opposite mine in this content dispute. Once again, editors here simply wish to ban me because I held a different position than them in a content dispute. One can imagine that this kind of POV will be normative if I am banned, as the individuals opposing me and several others in this RfC wish. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you give the context of the RfC? Above comment was for opposing the including of sentence - "However, a 2011 scholarly study published in the Review of Religious Research demonstrated that education is not correlated with disbelief in God". That reminds me: Anupam pushes hard for his POV even against the already formed consensus. This RfC is good example of that. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy violation in holding a view contrary to yours. Did I try to reinstate the academic journal after the RfC was closed, or while it was running? I did not, but instead, discussed the situation and accepted the outcome of the RfC. No editor should be banned for this. I hope this helps. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still saying that you are correct and the result of RfC (closed as per WP:SNOW) was wrong? The RfC created by you was entirely unnecessary as there were consensus in above section. This is just a very small example for wastage of valuable wiki community's efforts. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This sounds like an attempt to censor an opposing view. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Fasttimes68, thank you for your kind comments. This is exactly what is taking place. Most of the editors wishing to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC/content dispute, despite the fact that I accepted the outcome of the RfC. I always discuss content disputes with others and if RfCs are held, I accept the outcome. I feel hurt that some individuals want to ban me simply for holding a viewpoint different to theirs. Thanks again for your participation. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Fasttimes68. Personally, I edit in controversial areas so there's a very long list of editors that I disagree with on some point of content (if you think atheism is partisan, try editing Balkan geography or alt-med or diacritics). We usually get along fine, though; discuss, bring better sources, negotiate, compromise. I have not proposed topic bans for these hundreds of editors; I don't bring them to AN/I at all. I'm proposing a topic ban for the one editor who has consistently distorted, plagiarised, cheated, and lied - whatever it takes to push their POV, with contempt for the community, and burning out other editors. bobrayner (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban, but would accept a topic ban as described as a bare minimum. In addition to the inexcusable plagiarisim (and editor of his tenure should no better), the wp:battlefield and viewpoint expressed above ("editors here simply wish to ban me because I held a different position than them in a content dispute" - I'm uninvolved, thank you) indicate that the principles behind Wiki are not accepted and that future conflicts are inevitable. Regarding the idea espoused that his other contributions require opposition to the proposal, I add that should he only be topic banned, there's plenty of other topics within WP awaiting the editors contributions. Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose* IRWolfie-,first of all thanks for letting me know on my talk page about this discussion.Actually I am travelling and not able to log in regularly to edit wikipedia's articles.You mentioned my name in the discussion,that is not problem for me.But problem is that how much eager are the one chain of editors to be blocked an editor. Anupam is not only valuable but also a good editor to patrol monopolies and WP:Own,I do realy not see the grounds to be blocked from editing or editing religious articles.I would like to show a mirror that makes me surprised This,and on talk page of Atheism, where Tiderolls noticed, That. After Dominus Vobisdu, you immeddiately placed edit warring tag,here, it was not legitimate reason to notice me after two reverts. I consider it is WP:Hound and WP:Own. Any Consensus as the policy I have to accept,but I realy will not it recognised as a real concept of the wikipolicies on the demand of one chain of editors. There should not be applied "blocked" rule, untill fair and unrelated editors consensus is there,I think. I have not much time to discuss it in detail,sorry.(It was my comment but using now for vote. God bless you all. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:I demand that the unproven accusation of sockpuppetry and "and so on" be removed. This constitutes a personal attack. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner: maybe you should work on controlling your own edit warring tendencies before accusing others [50].– Lionel ^(talk) 05:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, the report you linked to resulted in page protection, not sanctions. Below, you've indicated repeatedly that Anupam has not edit warred because he hasn't been blocked. Are you being genuine here, or are you just trying to start fights so as to derail the thread? You can't claim Anupam hasn't edit warred on some bogus criteria you made up, but then ignore that criteria to claim other editors have. Read the diffs in that report if you're going to cite it; 3 of the 5 reverts came from another editor, not Bobrayner. Anupam's history of edit warring, on the other hand, is abundantly clear; frankly, it's a wonder he hasn't been blocked.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Lionel was unaware that that 3RR noticeboard report was a pre-emptive measure filed by an edit warrior who was a few reverts ahead of me, after I'd given them a talkpage warning. An edit-warrior who was stripping well-sourced content out of an article because only a subset of the sources fitted their POV. Such tactics will surely be familiar to any editor close to anupam. How was this thread started? (Also, even if the tu quoque were accurate, it would still be a fallacy). As for the sockpuppetry, the diffs speak for themselves. bobrayner (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Is it harmless editing or further evidence of a crusade? Make up your own mind. bobrayner (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What? User:Conservative is not my account; I am User:Anupam. If you noticed my words there (one, two) you would find comments that accurately characterizes me, as espousing neutrality. I am not responsible for what others post on my talk pages. User:Bobrayner, congratulations on trying to frame me here. Not only did you open a topic ban thread which was worded non-neutrally, you've outright lied about my contributions and have made accusations without evidence. --Anupam^Talk 12:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see neutral has a different meaning on conservapedia, neutral includes your creation of and massive work on "Atheism and the suppression of science". I see a friendly Conservepdia admin appears to have wiped nearly all of the edit history of your talk page, including the rather conspiratorial message that was left by User:conservative. good thing it's still cached here: [51]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Anupam makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I think it is pretty clear even in this discussion that he is very civil. I have had problems with editors in the past, but never with Anupam. I can't even say I ever had an ideological dispute with him. (BTW, I am atheist). AFAIK, Anupam has contributed to Wikipedia for years on a wide variety of topics. Unfortunately, I have seen a similarly valuable and dedicated editor be banned altogether from Wikipedia before, even as vandals get off scot-free. I don't want to have to see that again. I am sure that Anupam has good intentions here. I don't really understand why some users seem to have a problem with him, or why they feel so sure that they should not continue to assume good faith as (if I remember correctly) Wikipedia absolutely requires. Frankly, I think trying to topic-ban an editor like Anupam is a waste of time. In the amount of time it takes to argue for such a ban, you could instead fight vandals or actually try to improve the encyclopedia's content. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the diffs above? Whether or not an editor has "good intentions", if they systematically distort articles then their continued editing is a net negative. I don't care whether the deception, cheating, and plagiarism is motivated by good intent or bad; even if it's bookended by words like "please" and "thankyou", it's still deception, cheating, and plagiarism. That's why other editors have a problem with anupam's edits. bobrayner (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have been following Atheism for a long period and have noticed Anupam's methodology, which has been accurately summarized above. Some people are not able to be neutral about some topics, and a formal parting would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Conduct problems on these issues are recurrent on wikipedia and this suggestion seems the sensible way forward. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with additional conditions for copyvios After looking through the contribution history it is clear that this topic ban is required, albeit a very lenient approach. I'd like to add that any copyvio/close paraphrase/plagiarism that follows should be dealt with by escalating blocks, the third or fourth of which ought to be indefinite. It is also disingenuous to claim that Anupam is not disruptive because he's civil, we're here to build an encyclopaedia not have a jolly good conversation over tea and crumpets, the disruption is in the quality of content and passive aggressive behavior. The canvassing concerns are even visible on this topic ban proposal. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, clearly a pattern of persistent tendentious and problematic editing. Whether or not it regularly crosses the line into plagiarism or not, it is still piss-poor writing. We can do without editors who have both obvious ideological agendas and such a poor grasp of academic writing, messing up our most intellectually high-profile and most sensitive articles, such as Religion or Atheism, in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as second preference, also support community ban as first preference. The longer this thread goes on the longer I get the feeling that there is some serious meatpuppetry going on here. This entire scenario is setting my spidey-sense tingling. It reminds me far too much of the Polish-Russian ethnic warfare of 2007-2010 that culminated in the Eastern European mailing list case, and also of the Hindutva brigades of Rama's Arrow and other cases. The effortless coordination of bona fide accounts and SPAs is really suspicious, and absolutely typical of what we have come to expect in these kinds of cases. I really, really think this seemingly Conservapedia-based editing is being coordinated through some kind of off-site forum or mailing list. I could of course be wrong, and accounts like Turnsalso (talk · contribs) may be simple sockpuppets, either of Anupam or somebody else, but that doesn't change the overall picture here that much. Either way, I think I've seen enough that the presumptions of good faith I would usually extend are rapidly disappearing. I think it's time to purge this hornet's nest with fire. Moreschi (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well Moreschi you figured it out. Yes, I am a meatpuppet. A puppet for Lionelt. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a prelude to a community ban if they can't get their act together in the spirit of WP:ROPE. This user is nominally civil, but their contributions are horrid. Take a look at their editing at The Hunger Games (film), where they cherry picked one phrase out of a quote to support a single interpretation which vastly misrepresented the source. This is par for the course, and Anupman has totally failed to acknowledge that there is any sort of problem whatsoever with their constant plagiarism and agenda-driven editing. The fact that they seem to have a small group of supporters that come out of the woodwork at any criticism of their editing makes me question how effective this will be.eldamorie (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with extension, would also support a community ban. I lack confidence that habitual plagiarists will change their ways, but if Anupam wants to become a better researcher and writer, he should work on that somewhere other than Wikipedia. The ideologically motivated editing is an even stronger reason for him to go elsewhere, and as Moreschi says this thread is making me highly suspicious that there's sock- and/or meatpuppetry going on. So my preference would be that Anupam leave Wikipedia entirely, but if that's not going to happen he should be restricted from atheism/religion articles, where he seems to be causing the biggest problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - After looking at all of the diffs presented, it seems clear that Anupam has not only a problem with plagiarism but an inability to see that he is misrepresenting sources to push his POV. I think it's a little odd that somone who is unfailingly polite gets to exhibit IDHT behavior for years, disruptively; if Anupam had ever showed any aggression or incivility in his comments, his block log would not be so clean. Being civil is not a license to be academically dishonest (even if it's not deliberate). Chillllls (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment: Unfortunately, an administrator on conservapedia has hidden some of the evidence since it was mentioned here. Anupam can always count on support from certain editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the page has been deleted today (deletion log)--В и к и T 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One again, User:Bobrayner and User:Wikiwind, both participants of this RfC/content dispute, in which they held a viewpoint different from mine among many others', misrepresent me. If you care to look at the context of the situation, see Bobrayner's talk page. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For those users who deny any partisan interest here, refer to the comments of User:Bobrayner, the individual who opened the proposal to ban me: "I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade." User:Nomoskedasticity, also states: "Did you actually just use a FoxNews slogan as an argument? Oh, I get it -- you're trying to mock that version of oppose arguments. Well done." The intolerance for individuals who disagree with their viewpoints is atrocious. User:Youreallycan really hit the nail on the head here (by the way, thank you for your comments, User:Youreallycan). User:Bobrayner, User:Mann jess, and others here are creating a Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND by trying to ban me for disagreeing with their viewpoint in this RfC/content dispute. Being of Indian origin, I am exposed to the viewpoints of many religions and views (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, Sikhism, etc.) and respect individuals views. In real life, many of my friends are atheists, as well as adherents of other religions. To want to ban me for "POV pushing" when I always discuss my edits, participate in RfCs and accept their outcome is inappropriate. Has anyone even bothered to look at the latest RfC I opened? I attempted to add a study in a five sentence paragraph which discussed an inverse correlation on religiosity and intelligence. I thought that adding one sentence from a study which demonstrated a direct correlation between religiosity and education would help balance the other five sentences, keeping the paragraph in line with WP:NPOV, as well as WP:DUE (since I only proposed adding one sentence). What do I get in return? I am accused of misrepresenting the source, cherry picking, etc. despite the fact that three mainstream media sources (CNN, Daily Mail, and CP) published a news story on the academic study, reporting the same facts that I did. Nevertheless, consensus was against me after the RfC and I did not protest or anything. Like usual, I accepted the outcome of the RfC. Now, I am being banned for simply discussing an addition. This kind of behavior is not only unjust, but it is outright hurtful. Yes, I realize that I should have done a better job of paraphrasing and I was willing to work on that. User:Bobrayner, et. al. however, thought it would be a good idea to ban me altogether. --Anupam^Talk 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This post once again illustrates the problem precisely. Anupam again repeats the falsehood that he "participate[s] in RfCs and accept[s] their outcome". Exporting unattributed content to another website to promote your point of view when an RfC goes against you is precisely not "accepting the outcome". This level of unrepentant misrepresentation is exactly the problem with your editing. aprock (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that relevant? If I wrote the content and wanted to preserve my work outside Wikipedia, that is acceptable. I never reverted the redirecting of the article at Wikipedia, which is what is relevant here. The article at Conservapedia now, and the article at Wikipedia, read the same. Moreover, there is no promotion of any point of view; I wrote the article in accordance with WP:NPOV, which is why the article includes a "Criticism of the term" section. When some editors tried to make the article favorable to a certain position, they were quickly reverted by myself. In addition, articles that I created here, such as Qaisar Bagh, are also featured there without any problem. I hope this addresses your point. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it relevant? Your response is a prime example of the problem here:

1. Exporting the content unattributed is a violation of wikipedia copyright.
2. You explicitly reject the outcome of the RfC here by asserting that the disputed content was neutral despite a clear consensus to the contrary.
3. You repeatedly refused to understand/accept a clear illustration of your POV pushing and disruptive editing.

Based on your response here, I suspect that a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban. Continued unrepentant denial of disruptive editing is not the path to improving the project. aprock (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You state "Exporting the content unattributed is a violation of wikipedia." In response, I state, look at the attribution template on the talk page. You state "Yu [sic] explicitly reject the outcome of the RfC by asserting that the Conservapedia article represents NPOV." In response, I state when are editors required to agree with the outcome of an RfC? I simply must accept the outcome and let business on Wikipedia proceed as normal. You state "You repeatedly refused to understand/accept a clear illustration of your POV pushing and disruptive editing." I state that I have discussed any edits that I have made on this encyclopedia and open RfCs to gain the wider input of the community, and accept their outcome as I delineated above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that attribution. Unsurprisingly, it violates Conservapedia's guidelines: Permitted: You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. Pushing your POV on wikipedia, and then exporting disputed content is disruptive. It doesn't matter how polite you are. That is not what wikipedia is for. aprock (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Most strongly oppose permanent topic ban or community ban. Weakly support two-week topic ban or more strongly support a general censure by administrators, with no strong action taken unless the behaviour continues in a disruptive manner. In my dealings with Anupam, he has been nothing but civil; he has a POV; so does everyone who either supports or opposes him, and, as I oppose as per virtually every oppose !vote above, I also add my voice to the sentiment, that this seems to be the effort of one, predominant POV, to censor another, less-predominant POV, using such policies as WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT as a WP:COATRACK or clothing: but The Emperor Has No Clothes. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded dozens of fair use and public domain files and even with my exposure I still get confused with the myriad of copyright laws and relevant WP policies. CC-BY-SA, GNU, PD-NO-NOTICE... Anupam cannot be faulted for making an attribution error. He is not an attorney. So stop with this ridiculous obession with Conservapedia. I wonder if Conservapedia is being repeatedly invoked merely to stoke the rabid anti-Conservapedia sentiment against Anupam.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I don't care about Anupam exporting stuff to Conservapedia. I don't care much about what junk gets written on Conservapedia at all, by him or anyone else. His history there shows a bias, sure, but who cares? What matters to me is his behavior here, which up to now has been deplorable. It matters to me when he tells me he's acting on consensus, only to find out later the consensus he referred to unambiguously opposed him and he assumed I wouldn't check. It matters to me when he tells me a source backs up a statement, but when I read it, the source isn't even on the right topic. It matters to me when he quotes one line from a source out of context, when its conclusion is in actuality entirely opposite. It matters to me when he gets into disputes and manipulates RfCs by votestacking, meatpuppetry and canvassing in order to improperly sway consensus. We all realize that, even here in this discussion, he posted requests to users who had previously supported him in past ANIs to come support him again, right? It matters to me when he plagiarizes after being warned. It matters to me when he doesn't listen to other editors, and then repeats the same arguments over and over in the hopes that new users to the discussion won't want to read through the mess to find out he's misrepresenting facts. It really matters to me that this tactic actually works. But it matters to me, above all else, that despite repeated warnings, from tenured editors and admins alike... despite multiple ANI cases, repeated reports, and even the strong, unwavering consensus here (formed from a plethora of users he's interacted with and brand new editors he's never before seen) that his behavior is out of line, he still can't admit he's done anything wrong; he's still touting the line that we're censoring his religion; he's still implying we're heartless atheist pov-pushers trying to quash dissenting opinions, and that's the only reason we're all ganging up on him. That is why a community ban is in order.

Lionelt, you and your group aren't doing him any favors. You're encouraging him to continue battling this out, rather than accepting the input he's getting from the community which may have allowed him to improve his editing under a topic ban and eventually return to his favorite articles. Because of your encouragement, he's demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to accept criticism of his behavior and improve, which is why it appears he won't be afforded an opportunity to, for fear of continued damage to the encyclopedia. You can keep arguing about these atheist conspiracies if you want, but it hasn't swayed consensus yet, and it doesn't seem likely it ever will. I think it's time we let this back and forth between you and every other editor drop, and just let the community speak for itself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: when Anupam speaks of "partisan interest" he may be referring to the kind of mindset displayed here by ArtifexMayhem above and moved here:

Crucifixion's a doddle. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 3:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Was he baiting Anupam? Me? (In fact I bit on this one, but that's beside the point.) I think this post speaks volumes. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing of the sort. It is a quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian, Scene 16: Crucifixion: Could Be Worse... and was, in its original placement, simply a humorous response to your comment claiming editors "...have lined up here to crucify Anupam..." and that "This is nothing more than a crucifiction: an attempt to censor an editor who has successfully been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV." Obviously a failed attempt on my part and for that I apologize.

Of course you did have the option of assuming good faith and asking me to clarify or even strike the comment. Instead you decided to use it as an excuse to make a direct personal attack against me and my kind of "mindset".

So yes, I agree, your post does speak volumes. Reams in fact. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess is also misrepresenting the situation again. He states that "we're heartless atheist pov-pushers trying to quash dissenting opinions, and that's the only reason we're all ganging up on him," demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. He also states that "he's still touting the line that we're censoring his religion." User:Mann jess, please be straight with me. When have I ever said that? I would appreciate if you could tell me the answer to my question right now, and provide a diff. If you cannot provide one, I expect you to apologize and explain to me why you are trying to put words into my mouth. What I did assert was that there was a genuine content dispute in which you and I held different viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent me in order to further your agenda to have me banned here. Rather, please be honest. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to use Qaisar Bagh as an example, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. It's an example of blatant copyright violation.

Content from Anupam:

"Paintings and photographs of the Qaiserbagh gardens taken before 1857 indicate that the main quadrangle, which was the heart of the palace complex, had an elaborate charbagh"

Content from the source

"A study of paintings and photographs of the Kaiserbagh gardens taken before 1857 indicate that the main quadrangle, which was the heart of the palace complex, had an elaborate charbagh"

You were already asked in July 2011 to check your contributions for such copyvios, but you chose to ignore it. And now, you're talking about these copyvios as good contributions. That even now you don't seem to care about these problems and are in fact defending them as good contributions is very concerning. —SpacemanSpiff 08:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've marked the article for copyvio check as I can't access one online source and one offline source. —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I received a DYK for that work demonstrates that it was already checked by several others for these things. Rather than blanking my contributions, you easily could have added quotation marks around the sentence in question. Also please provide me the diff where you asked me to check that article. I do not ever recall being asked to do so. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've provided the diff earlier, it's pretty much a lost cause if you can not hear anything and continue in this manner, so I see nothing better than a full community ban here.—SpacemanSpiff 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You provided a diff for the article on Kashmir, not Qaisar Bagh, which received a DYK. I do not know why you are not being honest here. I am willing to help correct the Qaisar Bagh article and I admitted that I was wrong in the plagiarism issue several times throughout this thread. I stated that I was willing to work with a group of administrators and mentors on this issue. --Anupam^Talk 16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn the meaning of honest and dishonest before bandying those words about. That diff had a message to you asking you to check and correct your past contributions, something you refuse to acknowledge or act on. Quite the contrary, you are showing this blatant copyvio as an example for a good contribution and instead trying to deflect the problem on others. If we can not get you to understand this, then no amount of mentoring is going to help and it's a waste of productive editors' time. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (second choice) - Primary support is for full community ban (see below), but support topic ban as alternative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've long been concerned about Anupam's often bordering-on-tendentious editing style. This seems like a highly reasonable solution to that problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with extension. Would also be more than willing to act a statement to the effect of a community ban will occur if further copyright violations take place, here or elsewhere. While Anupam is largely civil in his interactions with others, his conduct in general in my eyes raises to the level of making this called for. We are here as per WP:PILLARS to build an NPOV encyclopedia, and the evidence above raises questions in my mind as to whether or not Anupam shares that principle. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with extensions as a minimum measure - for an indefinite duration (minimum of 1 year). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anupam conduct does not merit a topic ban.Pectore^talk 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per John Carter[52] and the other 25 supporting !votes above. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best sources available. Full stop. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have had limited interaction with Anupam. I do have concerns with him POV pushing and IDHT, and moreso about a posse with other editors. But, I can only hope that the other commenters, here, are not trying to silence him because they disagree with him. The clash of ideas among editors is good for the project -- it produces a better product. I think Anupam needs to realize that combating opposite POV pushing is not a matter of winning, its a matter of properly weighting reliable sources in consensus with other editors. Sometimes, the consensus will be wrong but its how we operate and compromise is necessary. If the consensus is wrong, in time, it will be corrected, if we believe in the process that reasonable people can reason together, and in an open wiki all things change. I know the "in time" thing is hard but it hopefully gets you through the day to make the Project better, where you can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Jess rightly pointed out that there are only 2 options on the table. The main issue here is plagiarism. The POV objections are in fact content issues and the complainants for the most part are the very editors who disagree with Anupam.

Therefore I propose that:

1. Anupam must acknowledge that plagiarism damages the encyclopedia
2. A special mentor be assigned to review his editing
3. Anupam shall review every edit going back 1 year and correct any plagiarism and close paraphrasing and give a full report to the special-mentor
4. Anupam will be placed on discretionary sanctions for 6 months where any admin may issue escalating blocks without warning in cases of plagiarism. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2 options pointed out by Jess were - a community ban or a topic ban. As per that, I suppose you should change this proposal to community ban. -Abhishikt (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Addresses the real problem: plagiarism. Sidesteps the political vendetta. Overall, fair, and balanced. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Wikipedia. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. In line with the above proposal, User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who voted above in support of a topic ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety, Qaisar Bagh) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for the newspaper of WikiProject Christianity, Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators. I also would look forward to being assigned a mentor to review my edits. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The plagiarism is one of the the main issues, along with POV pushing, edit warring, cherry picking... This proposal fails to address issues other than plagiarism. I've never seen that a user whose topic ban is debated, comes to ANI and actually votes to oppose his own topic ban. This "vote" is just another proof of manipulative tactics he uses to obstruct consensus and impose its views. This is hilarious.

But, I'm willing to support both, topic ban and this proposal.--В и к и T 03:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; plagiarism is not the main problem. Plagiarism certainly is a Bad Thing, but it's just one of the tools used in anupam's crusade. The crusade as a whole should be stopped, rather than just blocking off one of the tools used and turning a blind eye to the rest. Did lionel look at the diffs before making this proposal? A topic ban would stop the plagiarism and all the other bad stuff too. bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate that anupam still claims "I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well" when there is clear evidence of the opposite; and that anupam's comments here fail to address the main problem whilst pretending it's a mere content dispute. Nobody's proposing a topic ban for having a different POV; the topic ban is to stop deception, plagiarism, distortion, sockpuppetry, and so on. Would anupam like some more diffs? I realise the previous set of diffs was written off as a personal attack, but I think that evidence should always be given a second chance. bobrayner (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on two fronts: first, plagiarism is a serious issue and the fact that this has been going on so long unchecked despite repeated attempts to clarify this with Anupam leads me to believe that this would be completely ineffective, especially if that mentor where to have any relationship to the normally reasonable editors who can't seem to view Anupam uncritically. Second, plagiarism is not the only issue - there is a massive problem with misuse of sources that is pretty typical of the Conservapedia editing style - without a topic ban Anupam runs the danger of doing significant damage to the encyclopedia. eldamorie (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think Anupam could cause further problems if this proposal is enacted. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose #2 as a timesink which is unlikely to address the more serious issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fully support - addresses the real problem (close paraphrasing and plagiarism) without using it as a coatrack for "tyranny of the majority" or POV-pushing of another sort; remember what they say, "two wrongs maketh not a thing right". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would be huge waste of admin's efforts as Anupam exhibits WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT(which is proved again in this thread). -Abhishikt (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Honeypot

Out of interest, is there an easily enumerable list of editors who have an identifiable record of rote defense (particularly out of the blue) for Anupam? Given the abundance of evidence presented it stands to reason that the admin corps should be watching the lot of them for future incidents even after Anupam's well-deserved topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this not a recurrent problem with certain wikiprojects, which has been discussed on several occasions? Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci yes, it is. Regarding Chris' inquiry, I'd rather not list names at this time. If this behavior continues after sanctioning individual users, we may have to reopen the issue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List your names and the violations related to the accounts or move along - this sort of opinionated blabber is nothing more than that - Youreallycan 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, do list your names. aprock (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the users that have large contributions to the topic and associated articles - they are all involved and opinionated and conflicted - unlike the posts above I am not looking for any administrative action against these users just that uninvolved editors are aware that such a conflicted commentary is possible in this report.Youreallycan 21:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As I have pointed out before, most of the users who wish to ban me held the position I did not support in this RfC/content dispute. Bobrayner (talk · contribs), Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs), Abhishikt (talk · contribs), Wikiwind (talk · contribs), and eldamorie (talk · contribs), among others, all participated in that content dispute, and voted to "support" the splitting of the article (which never occurred by the way; the article was simply deleted, redirected and none of the content was ever moved). Coincidentally (or not), the same group of editors, magically showed up at this RfC, where they all coincidentally (or not) voted for the same Draft (Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), Abhishikt (talk · contribs), et al.). These individuals consistently all edit the same series of articles, demonstrating a partisanship here. The refusal to acknowledge that many of the individuals here hold a POV in what is actually a content dispute is outrageous and will jeopardize the policy of WP:NPOV that this encyclopedia should uphold. --Anupam^Talk 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, resent the implication that ideology has anything to do with this. Consider that groups of people with similar issues are likely to edit the same articles on Wikipedia - it's not evidence of any kind of partisan conspiracy. I'm not sure why I'm being accused of advocacy - especially since I did not participate in the Big Bang RFC that the "same" group of editors took part in. These so-called disputes are grossly overstated as well - in each case, consensus was overwhelmingly in support of the non-Anupam version - yet more evidence that this editor is a thinly-disguised POV-warrior. eldamorie (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Toilet bowl

I would also like to see a list of anti-Anupam editors who follow him around, get their asses beat at RFCs, and then run to ANI to get him censured. For all the accusations against editors who support Anupam, the editors who regularly criticize him have appeared here in record speed.

This effort to try to chill OPPOSE votes in this discussion by threatening enhanced scrutiny and review of contribution history, and challenging editors who support Anupam and calling them meatpuppets is a violation of AGF and is despicable. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's something that amuses me a little bit about "is a violation of AGF" followed immediately by "is despicable." Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"for every 1 pro-Anupam editor, there are 2 anti-Anupam editors following him around trying to destroy him" is not a violation of AGF? You are assuming that everyone supporting the topic ban are "following him around trying to destroy him". As far as I am aware I have had no previous interaction with Anupam. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Toilet bowl" as a header? Really? Perhaps you should back off for a moment before commenting further on this case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin: as a card-carrying member of the Department of Fun it is my job to be amusing.

@Saddhiyama: in the edit sum I did not suggest that "everyone" supporting topic ban is trying to destroy him. "Back off"? Not when I'm on a roll... Not when I have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it... – Lionel ^(talk) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you are on a roll; How about addressing some of the pretty damning diffs shown of Anupam's behaviour. None of your comments in this ANI threads have addressed that. How about clarify how editing "atheistic articles from a Christian perspective" is a positive thing? Edit: I see Lionel is otherwise occupied on the liberal bias which is Global warming [53] IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, IRWolfie, if you think my purpose here is to answer to your beck and call you are sadly mistaken. I edit what and where I want to edit. I check my watchlist when I damn well feel like checking my watchlist. And if I don't jump high enough or fast enough for you, well aint that a shame. When you start signing my paycheck, then you can write BS like the above. Until then, get off my back. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for assuming good faith, lionel! It would be nice if we could move away from tribal allegiances and actually make decisions based on evidence. I have no intention to destroy an editor with an opposing POV (I disagree with lots of other editors in lots of other areas); I merely wish to stop the pov-pushing crusade of deception, plagiarism, and cheating. Rather than making this a partisan thing, perhaps we could discuss the problematic diffs? It would be good to look at the evidence. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello Lionel...? Are you there? I was kinda hoping we could discuss the evidence of long-term deception, plagiarism, sockpuppetry, abuse of sources &c without it being reframed as a partisan battle. When you're "on a roll" and "have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it", perhaps you could take a little time off from kneejerk defence of anupam and spare a little time for the evidence? I can bring lots more diffs if you'd like. If this section is only here to sling insults and ignore the actual problem editing, maybe I should just hat it instead. Would you like to discuss some of the evidence, Lionel? bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • H_e_l_l_o B_o_b... Let me ask you something. Do I appear to be some kind of wikigeek? Is this the kind of vibe that I give off? You know, one of those guys who clicks "my watchlist" every 30 seconds, edits for days at a time sucking down cases of Pit Bulls to stay awake, eats nothing but Pringles and pees into an empty Pepsi liter bottle so they never have to leave the keyboard? Well I am not that guy. I edit when I feel like it. Questions????

But to your point. I am eager to discuss the so called evidence of alleged issues. Post what you think is the most egregious trangression and I'll help you to understand how ludicrous this whole thing is. Go ahead, give me your best shot... Bob... – Lionel ^(talk)

If you're eager to discuss it, then please do. Various editors have posted diffs which show a prolonged pattern of disruptive behavior. You are free to discuss any. You do not need anyone's permission to discuss them. If you're looking for a specific place to start, you could take another shot at discussing the edit warring over a span of 2 years described here: [54]. The last time you tried to discuss it, you changed the subject to blocks. aprock (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, if you say you're short of time, I sympathise - I completely understand that you made many lengthy posts defending an ideological ally, and trying to change the subject, and insulting opponents, but didn't have time to actually look at the evidence. This is just a convenient subset of diffs. There are other sets if you want them. Since there seems to have been some difficulty reading any of the many diffs presented above, I won't hat this list - don't want to create any further obstacles.

• 21:00, 27 June Turnsalso account is created at a time when anupam really needs support; somebody else has proposed splitting up anupam's essay.
• 21:37, 27 June Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue.
• 22:05, 27 June Turnsalso !votes "Keep; oppose split", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of wikipedia markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage!
• 22:14, 27 June After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extended that courtesy to any other users in the last year.
• In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by Fountainviewkid, whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community.
• 01:35, 6 July Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session.
• 05:32, 8 July Lionelt gives the sockpuppet a warm welcome; inviting them to join WikiProject Conservatism. Turnsalso hasn't actually edited any "conservative" articles, or written any content at all, but they *did* vote the right way in an RfC.
• 03:22, 13 July Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes.
• 08:07, 13 July Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote)
• 08:29, 13 July Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article.
• 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
• 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
• 18:49, 13 July Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. One minute after that, Anupam edits the article, then a few minutes later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso.
• 19:40, 13 July Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV.
• 20:03, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert.
• 20:16, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold.
• 18:21, 14 July Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits.
• 18:29, 14 July Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "revert until the issue is settled".
• 18:32 14 July Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits.
• 18:36, 14 July Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's.
• 14:14, 15 July Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry.
• 17:47, 15 July For turnsalso, reverting Mann Jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns.
• 18:01, 15 July Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel.
• 20:19, 15 July Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval).
• 03:25, 20 July Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors.
• Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully opposes a little later.
• 20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra support of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; [55] 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam.
• 23:43, 18 August Turnsalsos directly supports anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth?
• Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping anupam's preferred wording. All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes.
• IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. 16 minutes later, Turnsalso is there to support anupam.
• 19:33, 25 August After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution.
• Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, turnsalso supports.
• 21:04 25 August Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud.
• 23:27, 12 September Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam.
• 16:06, 16 September Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae.
• 18:01, 17 September Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word.
• 02:25, 20 September 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that Anupam has made. The revert is repeated at 02:47 and 02:53. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape 3RR.
• 05:46, 20 September: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters.
• Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid 3RR.
• 16:31, 20 September turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason.
• 16:59, 20 September bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry.
• 40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam appears to acknowledge the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and bizarrely refactors other people's comments to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary acknowledges it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried.
• 18:51, 20 September Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier.
• 19:04, 20 September Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit.
• 20:06, 21 September Turnsalso opposes the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap.
• Finally, on 03 October, Lionelt offers more support on the sockpuppet's talkpage - because the sock has been through such a hard time, what with having to constantly support anupam's proposals and repeat anupam's reverts.

It must be painful to realise that one of your favourite editors is just a pov-pushing sock. Or did you know all along? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lionel...? Are you there? I was kinda hoping we could discuss the evidence of long-term deception, plagiarism, sockpuppetry, abuse of sources &c without it being reframed as a partisan battle. When you're "on a roll" and "have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it", perhaps you could take a little time off from kneejerk defence of anupam and spare a little time for the evidence? I can bring lots more diffs if you'd like. If this section is only here to sling insults and ignore the actual problem editing, maybe I should just hat it instead. Would you like to discuss some of the evidence, Lionel? bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would only advise Lionel that the "unlimited space" phrase around here refers to content for the encyclopedia. WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:TE apply to off-topic and gratuitously less-than-civil comments on noticeboards as well. About the only thing that I believe this subthred demonstrates is that Lionel is himself driven by POV in his edits here. If that is the case, then he should perhaps take a break from further off-topic, tendentious editing here, and perhaps limit his comments to those which actually deal with matters of substance regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Any opposition to community ban?

The only formal proposal above is a topic ban with a loosely worded extension. Yet, a large number of editors (including myself) have indicated either a preference or ambivalence to a community ban. I only recall seeing one editor whose preference was instead a TB. The thread has been open a while, so it may be best to simply discuss this concurrently instead of opening a new proposal. Does anyone have any opposition to a community ban at this time? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Totally excessive - hes a decent creator of articles - monitoring (as proposed above) is sufficient. Youreallycan 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support per my early comment in support of of the topic ban. I am sorry to say that I suspect a topic-ban will be wiki-lawyered and the wp:drama will continue. I would support an extended ban (as previously described) as my next recommendation, and a narrowly-defined topic ban as the least desirable option (but still better than no action). Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support: The situation is clearly hopeless. Anupam will never be able to be a constructive WP editor, as he has overiding conflicting priorities and a fundamentally dishonest personality. The fact that his disruptive editing has been allowed to continue so long is an embarrassment to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is an embarrassment to the project is partisan attacking comments like yours above (calling someones personality fundamentally dishonest - is a clear personal attack that you should be blocked for - you don't want to know what I think about your personality, and even if you did - WP:NPA would restrict me.) and threads like this one - attempting to blackball a contributory user rather than point them to assistance and refocus them to more beneficial area for contributing. - Youreallycan 16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's been here for 7 years... there have been numerous ANI reports, numerous warnings (from admins in many cases). There is clearly a problem, and he's clearly been given ample opportunities to improve. Above, he's still denying there's any issue at all, and instead insisting that this is an attempt to censor him due to his religion. If you think he can be "refocused" where these problems won't continue to arise, how would you propose we go about doing that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect explanation of the problem - every legitimate criticism about Anupam's editing get's reframed by his supporters as a partisan attack. This is not about ideology, this is largely about repeated failure to understand how to use sources, how to interpret sources, and how not to commit plagiarism, despite repeated attempts to instruct them in these issues, coupled with constant denial that there is even an issue until it looks like they will be blocked - but nothing ever changes. eldamorie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I initially wavered, thinking a topic ban would be sufficient, but anupam's continued lies and continued refusal to accept the problems - instead trying to frame opposition as partisan - have made it clear to me that a community ban would be the better option. We need to stop the lies, the deception, the copyvio, and the distortion - and it's increasingly clear that only a community ban will achieve this. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, I have explained my reasons in previous comments. In my opinion, having Anupam monitored (as proposed above) is enough to prevent further problems.Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose I agree with Cody7777777. Justice007 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: if we're going to community ban editors with clean block records who have bouts of plagiarism and been reported to 3RR a couple times the only editors who will be left are me, Cody and Jimbo. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC) And while I think the quality of the content would dramatically improve, the three of us would be hard pressed to serve the 365 million readers who come here looking for fair and balanced information.– Lionel ^(talk) 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Did you actually just use a FoxNews slogan as an argument? Oh, I get it -- you're trying to mock that version of oppose arguments. Well done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- really, as above, it's perfectly plain that we'll have continued disruption from this editor, so a stringent preventive action is necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I base this support purely on the behavior displayed in this ANI report. Anupam has repeatedly refused to accept community input on disruptive behavior, including repeated examples of WP:IDNHT in the sections above. There is little point in preferring a topic ban for Anupam when he feels that his only transgression is that he has occasionally plagiarized. aprock (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't like "voting" on these sorts of things, and I believe that Anupam means well on some level and that he's genuinely hurt by the prospect of sanctions. But to me, this is a classic case in which we should politely but clearly ask someone not to edit here.

  It's frankly maddening or impossible to deal with Anupam when it comes to disputed content. He edits (and reverts) at a very high volume; he doesn't listen to or engage others' arguments; much of his editing is transparently ideologically driven; and his use of sourcing is careless at best and outright dishonest at worst.

  In a best-case scenario, we would need to ensure that his edits undergo a careful and exhaustive outside review for plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources. But even when those behaviors are identified, it's a huge and exhausting uphill battle to get him to acknowledge them, much less correct them. We just don't have the excess of editorial time and effort to provide the oversight that Anupam has proven he needs.

  I know that view is distressing to Anupam, and I honestly regret causing him any anguish, but when it comes down it his editing really isn't a good fit for this project, in my opinion, and we're not doing him any favors by stringing him along further. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Biased and partisan contributions is the current standard position at en wikipedia - restricting any single user for such a claim is amusing to say the least. - Youreallycan 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to crack down a bit harder on partisan editing, but that's actually more of an afterthought in this particular case. I do think that Anupam's editing is profoundly ideological, but that's an aggravating factor, not the main basis for my view that he should be restricted. The main problems are 1) serial misuse of sources; and 2) the inability to engage others' arguments or concerns, which renders any serious effort at dispute resolution useless and leads me to believe that there is no real prospect for addressing issue #1. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Serial plagirism, NPOV editing, IDHT behavior, apologies without meaning because they're contradicted by subsequent behavior; what, exactly, are we giving up by banning this editor? Not much, I think. 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

You claim "Serial plagiarism, " but there are no blocks at all for that - you question "what, exactly, are we giving up by banning this editor?" - they have created many many articles. - Youreallycan 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of other editors who created many articles, yet also were disruptive in their editing. They, too, were ultimately banned, albeit after much consumption of other editors' time. Learning from the past is a good thing (and, sadly, the editor in question seems to not be able to do so. I also would note, again, that accusing those of !voting here of being biased against the editor or his supposed ideology is not a good thing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Prefer TB + monitoring + possibly mentoring. SÆdon^talk 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support hitting Anupam and Lionelt with a frying pan, but more to the point, Anupam's lack of willingness to accept the issues, let alone change them, makes it seem that a ban would be the cleanest way out of this, especially considering how much time and effort has already been expended on the fellow, and how much more would be were other alternatives followed. What could the other editors be doing instead of dealing with all this drama? — Isarra ༆ 09:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Too much time IDHT on DR boards. An empty block log is not a validation of a user's long term pattern of contributions, rather it's a sign no individual edit has risen to the level of disruption required immediate preventative action. Nobody Ent 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A clear example where a Draconian solution is of no value. And of nugatory vslue to Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anupam has made and continues to make valuable contributions to the Indian wikispace, a community ban would just make this space even more of a cesspool of single-purpose accounts. I also believe this discussion will likely spawn a change in behaviour and I would be happy to help any admins in offering Anupam constructive criticism in dealing with issues.Pectore^talk 13:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first choice His attitude towards copyright violation is perplexing to say the least and we can not expect him to clean the mess he's set up here, so I don't think there's much point in anything further now, all good faith with regards to his being cooperative etc have been eliminated. —SpacemanSpiff 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support repeated plagiarism, and misuse of sources to push a POV, combined with a complete inability to actually recognise the seriousness of the issues, suggest to me that Anupam is simply unsuitable as a Wikipedia contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources to push a POV? Or do you mean that by banning me, you can violate WP:NPOV by making unchecked edits such as this one? I suggest you re-evaluate your position and acknowledge your biases. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the continuous attempts to reframe everything as an adversarial POV battle where both sides are at fault, rather than face up to the serious and long-term policy violations by one editor, reflects more badly on you than on His Grumpiness. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of community ban as per my above comments. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support I prefer topic ban, so that Anupam can continue contributing to the articles where his non-NPOV won't be an issue. But I won't object to community ban. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly per Mastcell. Other editors who contribute positively without engaging in tendentious-style of editing end up leaving the article space due to sheer exhaustion. That is not helpful to the project, particularly when the source of the issue is what needs to be addressed. The project resources dedicated towards monitoring/mentoring would be seriously disproportionate to the amount and standard of work that needs to be done in the article space, and even after all of that, it seems like we are prolonging what is (likely to be) essentially inevitable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's obvious that the answer to the question that people are responding to here is "Yes". HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support The conclusion is sad but inescapable: Anupam is here to push an agenda, with his grab-bag of polemical tricks. Wikipedia rules are just for getting around. Appeals and admonitions are for burying in thick creamy dollops of elaborate civility. Going back to the discussion on the suicide article above: "In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while." In other words: it's getting hot in here let's shut this down now. Presumably to return the with the same-old: plagarism, POV-pushing, source-mangling. Just in time, though, Lionel and co turn up to play nope-nothing-wrong-here tag, morale is restored and Anupam decides to tough it out with yet another round of La-La-La-Can't-hear-you-kind-sirs because all he's going to get is some absurdly unworkable topic ban to appeal/stretch/evade. I too, am aware that there are editors-for-hire operating here and that some unaccredited institutions give academic credits to students to contribute the house viewpoint to certain sites and blogs on religious and associated topics. But whatever it is that drives Anupam's dauntless devotion to his editing, it is such a shame that he will not, cannot, convert his zeal and abilities towards constructive contributions here. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support There is no excuse for plagiarism - especially not after the issues associated with it have been repeatedly explained. Lack of prior blocks is largely irrelevant as Anupam has gamed the system with their politesse - which should make it even more clear why a community ban is necessary. Far too much time has been wasted repairing the damage this editor has done. If we don't community ban editors who are so transparent about their purpose as editors - to advocate for a specific point of view to the expense of any sort of honest presentation of sources - then why do we even have the procedure? eldamorie (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Two month ban

As Anupam has never been blocked or otherwise sanctioned before we shouldn't assume that a time limited block wouldn't work. 60 days is probably long enough to get his attention. Except in extreme cases indefinite bans should be reserved for cases when lesser measures have proven ineffective. At the expiry of his block Anupam should be informed that if he messes up again the next block will be for two years. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the community agrees that I have been disruptive, I will accept a ban for sixty days. I acknowledge that I have been wrong in some areas and will use the time off to reflect, and after the period has expired, I will be a productive editor. If I mess up again, I will be banned for two years. Thank you for giving me another opportunity. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I am willing to extend a ban for more than two months if that is the desire of the community as long as a time period is specified, granted that I will be allowed to return as a full editor when that time is expired. Moreover, I am willing to have an administrator(s) or mentor(s) monitor me. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Regretfully, as too little, too late. I am reminded of other disruptive editors who, when cornered by an upcoming block or ban, agree to a short-term block followed by a promise of a longer-term (but not indefinite) block if they misbehave. Enforcing such "agreements" is no less time-consuming and angst-filled later than it is now. Finally, per Wikipedia:BAN#Duration_of_bans, "Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site". Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:JoeSperrazza, what length would be acceptable for you? One year? Two years? Five years? I am willing to compromise on this issue if it is the community's decision that I should be either topic or community banned I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe an indefinite Community Ban is appropriate. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions, an editor who has been Community banned can always appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to their talk page (assuming the latter is still available and has not been abused - I would think a repetition of the incivility and personal attacks shown by the editor and his/her supporters here in this discussion would lead to loss of talk page privileges, too). My concern with a time-limited ban is the likelihood it would lead to more bad behavior followed by yet another time consuming community discussion muddied by the kinds of discussions that have occurred here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Far too little. Indefinite or community are the only acceptable options, especially since it's clear from his responses on this page that he has no intention whatsever to cease his disruptive behavior. Sorry, but his apologies and promises to improve are insincere and empty. He clearly has an overiding POV mission that includes disruptive behavior like plagarism and sockpuppetry, and that is never going to change. It precludes him from being a productive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a long-term problem which has defied previous attempts at resolution. A 60 day ban means that in 61 days the lies, distortion, and vote-stacking will ramp up again. Anupam has avoided sanctions before, because they have unquestioning support from certain editors, and anupam hasn't been blocked for editwarring because anupam knows exactly where the 3RR threshold is - and when they reach it, an IP address or SPA takes the reins and performs exactly the same reverts. That is not a reason for leniency. I'd rather not repeat drama-threads (like this thread); even if we charitably assume that the next batch of pov-pushing content gets fixed after another protracted RfC, it wastes the time of good editors and burns them out. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your concern of "and when they reach it, an IP address or SPA takes the reins and performs exactly the same reverts" can be conveniently dealt with through the current sockpuppet identification process. If he uses socks during this ban, then he likely does not have the requisite good faith to use Wikipedia and can be banned then.Pectore^talk 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I first presented evidence of sockpuppetry, it was repeatedly removed by anupam's favourite administrator; and supporters could appear like magic. In future, assuming anupam remained at large - well, even if an SPI doesn't get shut down prematurely by somebody who got an urgent email, an SPI only adds one thing beyond the already-visible diffs - a checkuser. I'm sure anupam has sufficient wit to use a different IP and user-agent string, in which case a checkuser result is likely to be a technical negative, and anupam gains another defensive asset (ie. "I was exonerated so all those diffs are a baseless personal attack"). bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - A long wikibreak should give him enough time to digest the material presented here in a constructive manner.Pectore^talk 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Although, as I said before, I believe monitoring Anupam is enough, a temporary ban is more reasonable than an indefinite ban. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - simply getting his attention (which you already have) doesn't really address the problem. It's merely a start, and frankly, that's insufficient at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban on the basis of anything but copyvio. I have not only contempt for Conservapedia and its standards, but a feeling of utter disgust at the trends in American life that have brought it into being and that are expressed there (unless, of course, it is, as some have suggested, a parody site). Since my view on most subjects with which he is concerned is entirely opposite to his, I can not possibly support banning him based on his POV editing in these issues, either as a topic ban or a community ban. I think the only people who can !vote to do so without being affected by bias are those who have at least some minimal sympathy with his views. Plagiarism is another matter, and it would clarify things to have it discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for User:Lionelt

Hat-ing the section, as it is not the right place for this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looking at the uncivil behavior of User:Lionelt, evidently seen in this thread, his POV push (rather a strong fight) to save User:Anupam without any real data and failure to acknowledge the issues and get to the point, basically strongly exhibiting WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Plus past history of partisanship with Anupam in supporting his conservapedia type editing evident from Anupam↔Lionelt. Also his contribution doesn't look done in WP:NPOV to me. He has history of disruptive editing and a topic ban on him has been discussed before. A quick search in WP:AN shows: incident1, incident2, incident3, incident4. Thus I propose topic ban for User:Lionelt for religion/atheism/any controversial topics. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Support as proposer. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is mixing apples and oranges. If there is an issue with the editing of Lionelt it should be dealt with separately. aprock (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Comment: I take these charges seriously, for a change, perhaps. I'll let my record speak for itself: Over 17,000 edits. Never been blocked. Created a portal and took it to Featured. A list that I created is close to Featured List. Also a GA and numerous DYKs. Serve as a mentor. Created a Wikiproject currently with over 4000 pages & almost 80 members. Created a newsletter and co-created another. Hundreds of template & project space enhancements. Dozens of files uploaded--many audio and video files. If the community has tired of my presence, please, let me know... – Lionel (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Not relevant here, per Aprock. Let's keep on subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose = Not here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose pile-on per Aprock. Nobody Ent 12:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Blizzard Oppose Not remotely in order. Collect (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose - This proposal smacks of bad faith. People are allowed to advocate or criticize whatever users they want for legitimate reasons. Lionel has done so within the purview of Wikipedia policies, and a tangential look at his contributions shows he is an asset to the project.Pectoretalk 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose Not related with the issue, and sure and pure bad faith.Justice007 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Aprock. I'm sure we will have serious discussion about his editing in the future, but not now.--В и к и T 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This proposal actually looks to me more like some sort of joke. But in case it was serious, as others have also said, it's based on bad faith assumptions (it could even be considered an example of WP:WITCHHUNT), and it's also not the place to discuss it. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC) What the Hell is this about? I'll add my standard, diplomatic most strongly oppose to the blizzard oppose of above. This proposal makes me scratch my head. If this is serious, it is indeed a witch-hunt. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note, however, that, as has happened on previous occasions and as noted below, Lionelt has yet again used wikiproject noticeboards to "dial a tag-team". [56] Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Addition of 1RR

Since a number editors have expressed the opinion that a topic ban doesn't go far enough while a community ban may go too far, I propose that, in addition to any other sanctions, a 1RR restriction be applied to Anupam in order to address the 3RR boundary pushing and civil edit-warring.

• Support As proposer. Mojoworker (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as an alternative to the community ban, and in addition to topic ban.--В и к и T 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If a topic ban is what the community decides, I would accept a 1RR restriction granted that both the topic ban and the 1RR restriction are set to a specified time period (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc.). I also think that 1RR without the topic ban would be a better idea. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Possibly in replacement of the topic ban, certainly in replacement of a community ban.Pectore^talk 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support May help to curb problems before they start. This is in addition to a topic ban, not as an alternative proposal. SÆdon^talk 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As a solution fr a non-problem. The issue is not reverts - hence 1RR is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious. You say the "The issue is not reverts" but there is evidence of regular edit-warring (anupam surely knows where the threshold of WP:3RR is - they go there often - then sometimes an associate performs the next few reverts). Could you clarify your comment? bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The stated issue ab initio was plagiarism - I read all of the above discussion, and it is clear that this was what some editors appeared upset about. I trust the actual discussion is clear thereon. IIRC, your stated concerns were "pov-pushing" and "canvassing" which are also unrelated to EW assertions. "Sock-puppetry" is a matter for SPI, and not a strong issue here. And your liberal assertion of WP:TAGTEAM also does not belong here. And makes it apparent that the issue is not EW but a matter now of animus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly, I must disagree with you again; The stated issue ab initio was that viriditas was being mean to anupam. Then anupam got hit by the boomerang, and a variety of other problematic editing was pointed out; that's how AN/I works. Now, I'd be happy to provide more diffs of anupam hammering the revert button, if the diffs above are not sufficient to persuade you; I could even forward a spreadsheet (it's not hard to export 15000 contribs into Excel and then run a little VBA looking for clusters of reverts). Editwarring and tagteaming was mentioned previously; [57] if you wish to give carte blanche for editwarring because you didn't notice the last time editwarring was pointed out, I think it's unlikely that we can have a productive discussion. bobrayner (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I stick to my understanding of the issue. And if if wish to assert socking -- SPI is THATAWAY-->. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Saedon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 17:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I, too, don't see reverts as being part of the problem. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator

Please bear in mind Lionel's canvassing here. "The wolves are circling", indeed. One of anupam's defenders has admitted coming here following that canvassing. Also, I do not know how many emails were sent, but that seems the most likely trigger for an admin to hide some embarrassing evidence on conservapedia. bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind User:Bobrayner, the proposer of the ban, has made partisan statements, holding what can be characterized as a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In this example, User:Bobrayner states: "I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade." In this example, he states: "If you are unable to voluntarily end your crusade, the community will end it for you." User:Bobrayner, in a comment to User:Lionelt, who opposed the topic ban, stated: "Perhaps you forgot to respond over at WP:AN/I; I realise that you're quite busy writing about Ronald Reagan." User:Bobrayner also intentionally worded the proposal with his own bias, rather than neutrally, thus predisposing voters to his viewpoint and therefore biasing the outcome. I had kindly requested him to change the wording but he ignored the message, stating "Considering the long-term dishonesty, I don't think that adult supervision is sufficient." Coincidentally, User:Bobrayner, like many of the individuals who voted in support of a ban, participated in this RfC/content dispute, holding the view opposite to mine, among others, some of whom have commented above. I would encourage the closing administrator to keep in mind comments such as this one from experienced editors. Yes, I admit that I have violated the plagiarism/paraphrasing policy, albeit unintentionally and am willing to work on that. I also admit that some of the community has found my editing, especially on controversial articles, to be disruptive, which I did not intend either. However, I am willing to work with administrators and other users in my work for the future. I appreciate the closing administrator taking the time to read this message. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If any editor is tempted to take those quotes at face value, I would invite them to have a look at my talkpage and see the discussion in context. If any other editor thinks that any comment there is false, just point it out and I'll cheerfully back it up with diffs. Now, anupam, could you please stop the walls of text? This section was for pointing out the canvassing, not for repeating the same old arguments. bobrayner (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In case topic ban is chosen, let me list topics, which I feel needs to be included in the ban. People supporting the topic ban, feel free to add/modify the list. -Abhishikt (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Religion topics
2. Atheism topics
3. Creationism/Intelligent Design related topics
4. Science topics (e.g. Big Bang, Evolution)
5. Social and policitally controversial topics (e.g. Creation-Evolution controversy)

I might add that while many of the editors here have criticized Conservapedia, users on this thread (namely User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:IRWolfie-) have added external links on Wikipedia to an editable encyclopedia aimed at criticizing Christianity, RationalWiki, despite the fact that WP:ELNO states that "links to open wikis" are not permitted. According to the Wikipedia article on Rational Wiki, 'According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, "From there, RationalWiki members monitor Conservapedia, particularly on the page "Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?", and—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism".' Both User:Bobrayner and User:Abhishikt have defamed Conservapedia on the List of online encyclopedias article as well. Not surprisingly, these are the very individuals who would like to see me banned from editing. Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Proposal

The various comments above by many users support some kind of sanction on Anupam. Anupam is to take a two year Wikibreak to reflect on WP:NPOV and understanding the meaning of paraphrasing/plagiarism. In addition, he is to acknowledge that the community has recognized his editing as being disruptive. After two years, Anupam is invited to return again as an editor and work in a constructive manner. At this time, administrators will monitor his edits to ensure that he adheres to Wikipedia policy. 21:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know who proposes this (you might want to fix your signature), but they seem not to recognise most of the problems. Plagiarism is just one aspect. An unconditional return in 2 years - without recognising the wide range of problems - merely means that the distorting, cheating, lying, and pov-pushing will be postponed for 2 years. I don't want them postponed; I want them stopped. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, it sounds like you're proposing a 2 year ban on yourself. Why? Chances are that you'll be topic banned but not community banned so why all of a sudden propose a much more extreme measure? SÆdon^talk 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, thank you for your concern. I would not mind the topic ban personally, and it seems like consensus supports the topic ban at the moment, even though there are individuals who oppose that, even. The problem with the topic ban is that it does not specify a length of time. I would like to improve and work on the encyclopedia but I am doubtful that if I ask for the topic ban to be revoked after some time, that it will ever be. Furthermore, I feel that I have been very misrepresented above. The thread of the topic ban states "long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on." I never intentionally tried to deceive anyone - that's why I always tried to talk through problems. Furthermore, I am not User:Turnsalso, or any of the other IP addresses that the proposing user stated I was. I kindly asked him to reword his topic ban proposal so that it was more neutral but he did not listen. I do acknowledge that I have violated the plagiarism policy, and that many editors have found me to be disruptive, though I did not intend any of those things. I am frustrated right now because I feel attacked and very misrepresented and the attack-like wording of the proposal does not give participating users an opportunity to make a neutral decision. I have worked hard here since 2006 and have tried to be congenial with everyone, including those I disagreed with. Now, many of those individuals want me gone completely, without having a chance to improve, even with some guidance. What do you think? If some kind of ban is to be implemented, I would prefer the topic ban, although I would want an administrator to give a definite time. I am willing to improve and work with others; I have created nice articles, like Works of Piety, about Methodism, which I would like to improve in the future. I would rather be forced to take a two year leave than to never be able to edit on some of these interesting topics on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, on second thought, I do see what you're saying. There is no consensus for a community ban at this point. I do agree with my previous post however, that I have transgressed against the plagiarism policy and that some of the editors here find my editing to be problematic. It looks like consensus is favoring a topic ban against me at this point, although there are a significant amount of users who did oppose this as well. I would accept a topic ban of a limited time period (one year, etc.) in good faith. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest six months. Nobody Ent 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Nobody Ent, thanks for the suggestion, which I do like and prefer. However, above, User:Alessandra Napolitano, suggested two months and that received some opposes, as being too short of a time period. Since some individuals think that the leave should be longer, I extended the time period to two years. If many users here find that to be too long, and wish to be more gracious, I would gladly take one year or six months. Thanks again for your concern. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Whoa No semblance of consensus for any such Draconian solution is evident above, hence this "final proposal" is of no value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus for anything here - and all the options have been suggested - this thread should be closed - its abuse to keep a thread open about a user on this attack board for any length of time - Anapam seems like a decent chap and appears to have taken the good faith advice you have all given him on board and so lets give him a chance to improve his contributing a bit.Youreallycan 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed. Close this, but open a new thread limited only to questions of copyvio and plagiarism on material introduced into Wikipedia Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@Youreallycan: Actually, it is not the case that there is no consensus for any of the proposals here. Just on the basis of !votes, the topic ban proposal has 28 supports and 9 opposes, which is 76%. That's certainly in the range where an admin could impose the topic ban, if the strength of the support arguments hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't and haven't actually counted the votes - I just felt from the whole discussion here that if you remove the partisans/users that are editing from a diametrically opposed real life belief to Anupam that there is/was no consensus amongst the uninvolved commenters - Youreallycan 13:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I really have very little idea of the "real life beliefs" of the participants here, and I think it would be a mistake for a closing admin to try to take that into account -- too many assumptions to make which could well be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anupam

Statement by User:Anupam: Dear Administrator User:DGG, User:Youreallycan, and User:Collect, thank your for your kind comments. I acknowledge that I have transgressed against the plagiarism/paraphrasing policy at Wikipedia, although unintentionally, and am committed to working with administrators who are welcome to monitor my work so that I might not do so anymore. Although I always add citations to my work, that is not enough and I should put quotations in direct quotes. In addition, I acknowledge that some editors have found my editing to be problematic and I am willing to improve in this area as well, with the generous help of administrators, as well as users on Wikipedia. While some users have suggested a topic ban, other experienced editors have opposed such a ban, on the basis of the issue amounting to a content dispute. However, if it is the desire of the closing administrator that I should be topic banned, in light of looking through the situation, I would accept a topic ban in good faith for a specified time period, even for one or two years, to one day generate more articles, such as Works of Piety, which I created. I am also open to the suggestion of taking a long WikiBreak, during which I can reflect on Wikipedia's core policies and mission, which will help me grow as a person and as an editor. I have been an editor since 2006 and enjoy creating articles, editing them, and helping other users; many individuals, including administrators, have appreciated my efforts here and I am glad that I can make a positive difference. For the things that I have done wrong, I ask you to please forgive me; I mean that will all my heart. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I am grateful for all the comments here to help better myself and Wikipedia as a whole. Your fellow editor and friend, Anupam^Talk 02:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anupam, could you please stop the cherrypicking and the walls of text? We all realise that you are capable of being superficially civil, but "some people support me" is a deeply inaccurate summary of what's above, we've heard all the excuses several times - and the politeness is the only reason you've got away with the lying, distorting, plagiarising, and cheating for so long. Please stop. Let the closing administrator make their own decision. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New evidence

The deeper you dig, the more problems you find. For instance, today I discovered that:

• Unaffiliated was created as a coatrack for the claims about atheism & suicide which anupam had previously tried to insert into other articles;
• Patrick Greene (activist) paints a very different picture to [58];
• Half of the original Centre for Intelligent Design was a direct copy & paste from [59] and that text is still, unmodified, in the article today.

And so on. What else will be found if we dig deeper? It might be worth returning to the Militant Atheism article history, and looking at the background of a couple of other accounts which supported Anupam in one of the many RfCs; although, alas, the existing collection of diffs seems to have been totally ignored by anupam and by those who were canvassed from the Christianity noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This demonstrates a content dispute and a desire for User:Bobrayner to suppress a point of view different from his. Notice how he values a personal blog he wrote for a pressure group more than MSNBC, MSN, The Houston Chronicle, among other mainstream sources. The article on the Centre for Intelligent Design also is not a copvio as User:Bobrayner falsely claims; in fact, as demonstrated in the talk page of the article, a dispute resolution was enacted to help write the article. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 17:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, please stop lying. Half of the text of this is directly copied from here. Other editors are welcome to search for the text about charitable status and Guernsey.

This is not a content dispute - a point which has been explained repeatedly above - I couldn't care a jot about the charitable status of the CID. I am merely presenting further evidence of lying, copying, distorting, and cheating. If any other editors haven't made up their mind yet, I can go look for some more diffs.

Curiously, your response doesn't actually mention this - you really ought to stop the cherrypicking. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner's comments above reflect his POV here, presenting a conflict of interest, due to his personal POV position (which is an acceptable position, just one that may present a COI on articles related to atheism and religion); while he removes information from the The American Journal of Psychiatry with the edit summary "removing more WP:COATRACK," he retains the section here and does not remove it as a WP:COATRACK; User:Bobrayner also continues to let the WP:POVTITLEd section "Dangers of Religion" maintain itself in the article, not applying the same logic here. I would request that the filibustering please kindly end and instead, let the reviewing administrators look at the situation. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, what on earth are you talking about? If you don't like the "Dangers of Religion", try discussing it on the article talkpage - don't blame me for a section that I never touched, in an article that I last edited in July 2010 (well before that heading was created). Finding an unrelated flaw in a random article is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for a long campaign of cheating, lying, copying, and distorting.

I realise that anupam's defenders would like to frame this as an A versus B POV problem, but the evidence presented here shows one editor pov-pushing, sockpuppeting, plagiarising, and misusing sources. Not one side; not both sides; just anupam. If anybody digs up evidence of other editors playing the same dirty tricks, feel free to create a new thread on AN/I or some other appropriate venue. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding bobraynor's claim of new evidence - I am not seeing it at all in his diffs - Closure is needed here - clearly there are a few issues with Anupam's contributions, and the user has accepted that themselves - what about a IRR and a topic ban for two months - 1RR is a beneficial learning for all users and he might enjoy editing in less controversial area - the user has some/many beneficial contributions including NPOV article creation to the project can contribute for a couple of months in a less involved area and work on/learn more avoiding plagiarism ? - not as a punishment but as a relazing wiki break from a highly conflicted partisan area and an opportunity to read policy regarding plagiarism so as to avoid repeated issues in future. Youreallycan 18:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree closure is needed, but believe that a temporary topic ban is woefully insufficient:

• "Good contributions" does not provide a pass for bad behavior.
• "Lack of blocks" seems attributable more to success at gaming the system than a real respect for the WP community
• The battlefield behavior shown is atrocious.

This entire situation, including the chorus of "Good contributor!" and "Other POV pushers", coupled with really incivil behavior by many in this discussion (and some obvious canvassing) reminds me of the User:Grundle2600 mess. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Postscript:

• If others want to give credit to contributions of an editor, award a Barnstar. Don't use them to provide cover for bad behavior.
• Want to support the editor, or defend yourself? Great! But constantly lamenting that "those here are on the other side of the POV, so everything they say is biased" is offensive.
• Similarly, if others are concerned about "other POV" pushers, (1) find the diffs to support your position and have those editors sanctioned and (2) get the collection of articles covered under editing restrictions, to address bad behavior as soon as possible. The idea that this POV-pushing editor should be excused because he balances out "other" POV-pushers is absurd. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Grundle2600, I can the deja vu is strong with this one: "Given that my request was completely polite, and non-political, I think any block is unjustified". aprock (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is from my experience of such reports a reflection of the minor infractions that no action has been taken after many days, when violations are presented Admins act fast - yes there are partisan involved contributors shouting loudly and often - but about minor complaints that can be addressed without extended severe punishments. - Is a two month topic ban and 1RR restriction not severe enough for you? Youreallycan 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is generally true of egregious and and uncivil editors. The circumstances and issues with WP:Civil POV pushing are characteristically different. aprock (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)"Is a two month topic ban and 1RR restriction not severe enough for you?" Respectfully, no. From my experience, in 2+ months, this issue will be back again, at this or some other venue, wasting the time of the community again, and contributing to yet more disharmony. As a reminder, I came to this issue only by perusing WP:ANI, and then reading the diffs and talk pages and article history pages associated with the dispute. To me, as a complete outsider, the issue is not a well-meaning but misguided editor that just needs time and some oversight to mend his accidentally erroneous ways. Rather, I see a concerted effort to game the system, and all that means. A limited or indefinite topic ban will just mean more things to wikilawyer, and more envelopes to push. The editor can always appeal a Community ban in 6 months (and, earlier in this discussion, seemed ready for a 1 or 2 year topic ban!). Appeal to the community (or ArbCom) in 6 months, and, assuming good behavior in the interim, he can resume with his many good contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You people better watch this like hawks

Tea Party provacateurs have filed and linked this AFD off of Drudge Report. Lots of people are coming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forward_%28Obama-Biden_Campaign_Slogan%29 Herp Derp (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean "fully protected," so only administrators can !vote? It looks more like it's "semi-protected." And the semi-protection is currently set to expire 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC), not in three days. Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two separate protections - the AFD is semi-protected for 7 days. The article itself is Full protected for three, since many of the shenanigans from the AFD were spilling over (or vice versa). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not the nicest of ways to speak to fellow editors. You people better watch this like hawks. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. The title reference was neutral enough. The "provacateurs"[sic] might not have been, but seems to be in context when you consider the political leanings of the source of the links. It was a good call to bring it here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I much prefer Antics, myself. But that's just me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't see anything at all wrong with "You people better watch this like hawks." Seriously, nothing. And yes, what Dennis said – very good call to bring it here. Good on ya, Derpy! Well done :D Pesky (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Community sanctions enforcement request: Delicious carbuncle

(Note: this was originally filed at WP:AE but I've moved it here at the request of User:Lothar von Richthofen, as a more appropriate forum.)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prioryman (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

• 00:04, 2 May 2012‎

This edit on a user talk page repeats exactly the same subject matter as the topic of the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard that led to the interaction ban between DC and myself. To summarise: DC has taken it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante "policing" my edits. He has stalked me on and off-wiki for nearly two years, even going so far as to create a "monitoring" thread about me on Wikipedia Review. This has led to repeated clashes on-wiki. An interaction ban was proposed by User:28bytes and enacted by User:ErrantX to enforce a complete disengagement between us. Under the terms of the ban, we are prohibited from "discussing each other, or interacting" at any venue. A narrow exemption is given for appealing the ban on the user talk page of ErrantX or to the Arbcom: "Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom." [60]

DC has blatantly flouted the IBAN by continuing his vigilante behaviour on a matter which is not remotely related to an appeal of the ban. This is especially egregious as (1) he has previously been blocked for breaching the ban [61] and (2) as noted here, "editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me ... aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia", which arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [62] After DC's previous block, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise told him: "I would want to come away from this with one unmistakable clarification: if ErrantX spoke of his page being "exempt" from the interaction ban, that does not mean his page is a place on which you are simply free to continue your fights. The consensus on AN was for a full interaction ban, not an interaction ban with loopholes." DC responded that he "never had any other understanding". [63]

It's obvious from this incident that despite what he told Future Perfect, DC has not ceased stalking my edits and taking it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante. This is precisely the type of behaviour that necessitated the IBAN in the first place and is an absolutely unambiguous violation of a clearly worded interaction ban. With two violations in only six weeks, it's clear that he has no intention of stopping this obsessive behaviour and the only thing that is going to put an end to this once and for all is a substantial block for him. Total disengagement has to mean just that, otherwise this IBAN is meaningless. The admin who imposed the ban, ErrantX, has said that if another admin "want[s] to impost a block on DC for violating the IBAN that is fine by me."[64]

For the record, I have abided by my side of the ban and have refrained from interacting with DC, or commenting on or off-wiki on him or his interactions with others. I've said repeatedly that I want nothing to do with him and I've stood by that intention. This intervention by DC has come out of the blue with no provocation of any kind on my part. I'm deeply frustrated that despite my restraint and avoidance of trouble, this nonsense is still continuing despite the interaction ban which was supposed to end it. Please resolve this once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, how have I violated the interaction ban? Are you seriously suggesting that it's a violation of the interaction ban to ask for the interaction ban to be enforced? How am I supposed to deal with violations of the ban, then? I'd like to remind you that I am the victim of a violation here, not the perpetrator of one. I've been keeping my head down and out of trouble, and have done nothing to provoke DC into going after me yet again. I am not the one causing the problem. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are [the victim] which is what makes this rather tricky to handle. Had you not considered using email to request that ErrantX or someone else deal with DC's post, rather than creating more drama on-wiki? But I can see how you might not think of that. Hmm. Technically I think you're both in breach of your ban, but blocking people on technical grounds seems rather off. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I raised it with ErrantX he declined to enforce his own interaction ban - his words: "I've had my fill of "OMG DRAMAZ" (one reason I mostly ignored DC's comment) for the month, so I'll let some other admin inherit this headache." [65] This leaves me with no recourse whatsoever other than to ask "some other admin" to deal with it, which is what I'm doing here. I don't know who specifically to ask. I want nothing to do with DC and only want this person to leave me alone as he is supposed to be doing. I want to disengage from DC but he isn't disengaging from me despite the IBAN. Can someone please get this sorted out? Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Imposition of the interaction ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 19:02, 3 May 2012‎

Huh. Well, my initial reaction is to block Delicious Carbuncle (96h) for violating his interaction ban, and then block Prioryman (96h) for also violating the interaction ban. Having done my homework on this, however, I see there is a significantly controversial back-story here, so I'll wait for others to weigh in and see what they think. Moreschi (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the block of DC would be per Prioryman's reasoning, since the post on ErrantX's talkpage is clearly not appealing or discussing the interaction ban and surely constitutes more stalking and harassment in violation of the terms of the ban. Blocking Prioryman would be because DR processes were specifically included in the terms of the interaction ban, and the correct course of action, if he wanted anything done about DC's post, would be to email ErrantX or an uninvolved sysop, rather than create more on-wiki drama here, at AE, ErrantX's talk, and Future Perfect's talk. But my reasoning on blocking Prioryman might be off, so feedback would be appreciated. This is a tricky one to handle. Moreschi (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm now significantly less inclined to block Prioryman, as we don't usually do purely procedural blocks when there was no intent to violate the ban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If AE requests are prohibited by the ban, that's quite unfair; either user could do something to the other, have the other report it as a violation, and succeed in getting the other one blocked for reporting it some way or another. It's only fair to permit either user to report alleged violations at AE. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would not be absurd if one of the goals of the ban is that neither party should be allowed to bring reports against the other, regardless of the actions of the other. Basically a "even if you see him torching a barn, you cannot call the police because we don't trust you not to abuse the police phone number" situation. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You're half-right. One of the goals of the ban is to prevent either party bringing reports against the other (in fact, that was at my own insistence). However, where your analogy falls down is that this is not a "torching [someone else']s barn" situation but a "punching me in the face" situation. I'm not raising this thread because DC has done something against someone else, I'm raising it because he's done something against me, in open contravention of the ban. Conversely DC is in the kind of situation you envisage, because his intervention on ErrantX's talk page was yet another attempt to get me sanctioned for what he sees, wrongly, as a violation of my existing sanctions. That has nothing to do with administration of the interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the edit for which DC reported me to ErrantX is this one, where I reverted a vandal who had changed the title of Battlefield Earth (film) - a featured article that I co-wrote - to "Battlefield Fuckstick". I hardly need to point out how petty and vindictive it is to try to get me sanctioned for that. Prioryman (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, please go with your gut -- block both. 96hours, 96 days, whatever it takes. Nobody Ent 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair, I was not involved with the initial ban, so I don't have the full context, but the idea that two people don't get along to the point they can't even be trusted to call the cops when one is beating the other is not totally lacking in logic. Possibly common sense, but not logic. I would defer to Moreschi's proposed course. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How would blocking the victim of an interaction ban violation possibly be fair? I've been targeted for two years by this individual. He's been given an interaction ban with me which was supposed to have stopped it. He's continued despite the ban. How is that in any way my fault? Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a two-way topic ban, not a one-way ban towards him. That is a presumption that both parties are at fault and neither is the victim. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a two-way ban, which I fully supported in the earlier AN discussion. I specifically called for a total disengagement, each of us ceasing to have any involvement with the other. That's not a dispensation of "fault" - I simply don't want to have anything to do with him. I've abided by my side of the interaction ban. He's violated it twice in six weeks and has already been blocked 48 hours for his previous violation. Draw your own conclusions. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• sigh* I'd hoped that this would not spin up again after I managed to drag these two users kicking and screaming apart before. Long story short; they simply cannot cope with each other. DC managed to keep away from Prioryman for some weeks; but then just posted to my user talk raising not only a valid matter I had neglected but, as prioryman mentions, another matter which indicates he is still sniffing around Prioryman. My inclination in such cases is usually to revert and leave it at that for the first few times - and hope that by keeping the matter de-escalated things will continue to stay nice and relaxed. However Prioryman has, yet again, risen to the bait and dragged this across various noticeboards (there was no initial request to me to take extra action). As I said to him earlier; a key part of the interaction ban is being able to ignore the other person, something he has failed to do.

The point of the IBAN was to stop the disruption across the project space that they caused by their clashing; as Prioryman has demonstrated, this has not worked.

Both these users need their heads banging together and to be set down in their respective corners. What to do? I'd be inclined to follow Moreschi's gut reaction - a longer block for DC for flagrant violation of the IBAN and its intention. And a block for Prioryman (24h?). With the hope that this impresses on them one last time that the community is fed up of their bickering match.

In terms of the restriction on noticeboards, that was finicky because pretty much both of them complained about the other misusing DR processes. Basically it was a pain in the neck. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because you (Prioryman) lack the self discipline to simply ignore it. No one (well, at least not me) is interested in refereeing the interminable squabble. The wise course would have been to simply ignore it until someone else figured out DC was violating the ban. Why do you care whats going on ErrantX's talk page, anyway? Nobody Ent 19:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I care because I've been targeted by DC for two years and I want it to stop. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no to a block on me - again, I am the victim here. I did not ask for DC to intervene. I have not had anything to do with him since the IBAN. I've followed my side of it. I'm sure you're fed up with the drama, but it is not my fault that DC has gone after me again. If you had enforced your own interaction ban, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead you invited DC to email you privately to report issues about me unrelated to the ban! How can that possibly be compatible with DC being instructed by you and the community to disengage from me? As I've said repeatedly, I want nothing to do with this individual and you seem to be blaming me for asking for his disengagement to actually be enforced. That is grossly unfair. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the impression that an interaction ban was not a good solution to this sort of a problem. If someone is stalking and harrassing, then this is a rather one sided problem. If to keep the peace both sides agree to an interaction ban instead of fighting out a lengthy dispute resolution process here (e.g. an ArbCom case), then that is in the Wiki-sprit of dropping the stick and moving on. But the problem then arises later, if this interaction ban is interpreted in general terms outside of the original context in which it was implemented. I have experienced this sort of a problem myself a long time ago here in relation to the issues regarding Brews Ohare's ArbCom sanctions.

I think that one should not impose interactions bans at all, and instead appeal to the fact that people here should behave as grown up adults. If people stalk and harrass, then that in itself is grounds for Adminstrative action. So, you can file reports at AE, but if you file misleading reports, then you'll lose te right to post there. An interaction ban is more suitable for a Kindergarten like setting, there putting fighting toddlers apart for a while can work. Count Iblis (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. I've given DC this very sternly worded warning telling him that future violations of the ban will be regarded as stalking and get him a very lengthy block. Prioryman is asked to report future suspected violations, should he so feel the need, privately via email to myself or another uninvolved adminstrator, rather than creating a massive thread on the drama-boards to the exasperation of all. Nobody gets blocked, largely thanks to a somewhat surprising outburst of charity and goodwill on my part, which will doubtless come as a surprise to everyone. Now, can I tag this as resolved? Moreschi (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, that is acceptable. I hope there won't be any further problems. The matter's resolved as far as I'm concerned. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What a load of absolute bullshit. I asked, more than once, for an interaction ban because of the persistent attacks from Prioryman, many of them containing demonstrably false statements. Perversely, the ban was only enacted when I asked on ANI for Prioryman's many sanctions to be fully and properly recorded. As usual, Prioryman's aim here is entirely self-serving. Moreschi describes him as a "victim". A victim of what? Of having the community hold him to the sanctions imposed on him? Of being asked to account for his edits which violate those sanctions?

I do not understand why anyone would object to having Prioryman's sanctions fully and properly recorded. When I asked for this in the original ANI thread, Prioryman refused to enumerate the sanctions of which he was aware. This is hardly a show of good faith. ErrantX undertook to follow up on this issue, so I asked him about on his user page, which was explicitly exempt from the ban, when it was brought to my attention that Prioryman was petitioning for one of his sanctions to be lifted. A sanction that is not recorded on WP:RESTRICT, incidentally.

Contrary to what Prioryman states, I did not ask for him to be "sanctioned" for this edit which is in violation of teh sanctions given to ChrisO/Prioryman in WP:ARBSCI. I asked that he be reminded of those editing restrictions. It may be instructive to point out that he has since made a further five edits ([66], [67], [68], [69], & [70]) in violation of the same restrictions.

Prioryman has a long and spotty history with violating or skirting editing restrictions. The problem here is not that I am monitoring his contributions for violations, but the violations themselves. ArbCom has tended to turn a wilfully blind eye to Prioryman's tendency for lying, sockpuppetry, and conflict because he is a fairly prolific creator of high-quality content. While I appreciate his positive contributions, his negative actions are harmful to the project and should not be excused. This type of bad behaviour is akin to a high-performing manager who sexually harasses their employees. Most companies have realized that this is not a good trade-off. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So in that one post here you not only managed to violate your interaction ban but also compare Prioryman to a sexual harasser. Well done. That has got you blocked for the next 75 days for violating your ban after being warned (and per your talkpage knowing full well that you were doing this and you would get blocked as a result) and for flagrant contempt of the restrictions you are under. I'm sorry, but it is very explicitly not your problem to deal with Prioryman's edits. That is our job. The community has decided that your attempts to monitor his contributions are disruptive and that you two need to be kept away from each other, and if you can't be bothered to abide by this, the next block will be for even longer. Moreschi (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That is totally undue - 75 days - clearly this dispute is a two way street - do you think such attack administration is beneficial to lowering disruption - well anyone can edit wikipedia and they will -even if you attack or not - they will come back and attack harder - this sort of disruptive administration will be the death of en wikipedia - Youreallycan 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, terrible block. I...wow. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking it's ridiculous in the first place that ANI posts regarding enforcement of the interaction ban are being construed as violation of the interaction ban? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I just hope a clear minded admin steps in at this point. Arkon (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not just referring to DC's block, but Prioryman being accused of ban violation when he first brought this here. I can't remember this ever being standard in dealing with topic bans. I think this discussion should reset, exclude pointing at posts in the section as evidence of violation, and just focus on the reported events so we can actually deal with what transpired. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Prioryman is completely in the right to make a report about the violation. He followed the rules in the first place by contacting Errant, as he was supposed to, but Errant didn't want to do anything. And it wasn't that he saw anything unactionable, he just didn't want to be involved. So Prioryman took the logical next step and filed an AE report. I don't see an issue from him here. If DC violated the ban, then he was right to report it, since Prioryman is the one being harassed. Silverseren^C 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, the accusation of an interaction ban violation from Prioryman was due to DC posting on Errants page, which as you said, was as he was suppose to do. Then he went forum shopping, doing the exact same thing he was complaining about DC doing. DC comes here and responds in kind, and bam, block. Crazy. Arkon (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to correct you about being "supposed to" post on ErrantX's user talk page. The ban permits both parties to use ErrantX's page to raise issues concerning the interaction ban and only that subject. ErrantX did not enact the interaction ban in order to confine the dispute to his talk page - the ban is there to stop the dispute. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Silver seren's opinion that it was the right thing to do. Do you have a diff for the 'only that subject' part? I couldn't dig it out from the links on the iban logging. Honestly, Errant is as much to blame for all this as anyone. He took ownership of the issue when it was first raised, then ran away when the inevitable happened. Bleh. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see [71] for ErrantX's post imposing the interaction ban. It requires total disengagement in all venues but allows appeals against the ban on ErrantX's talk page or to Arbcom. The terms of the ban were reiterated by Future Perfect here. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Arkon (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is when someone disagrees with you and you go somewhere else to try again. ErrantX didn't disagree, he just didn't want to deal with it. A new forum was the appropriate move. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-action would seem to imply disagreement, or at the least, non-agreement. However, putting that aside, it doesn't change how bad this block is. Even his reasoning in the post above is incorrect on the facts, "the community" never decided anything about this iBAN. Arkon (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have left fairly extensive rationale for this block at DC's talk. It is more complicated than it appears and requires that you read through the archived discussions that lead to the original interaction ban that ErrantX imposed, which I strongly recommend that people do before commenting. These two are not supposed to fighting at ANI, nor reporting each other here, nor discussing each other anywhere, which is why 1) DC's post at ErrantX's talk was harassment, in violation of his ban and 2) arguably so was Prioryman bringing it to ANI/AE instead of reporting the original harassment through email, say. This is arguable, and you could argue that it's fine for him (Prioryman) to do so, but please bear in mind that the original intention of the ban was to stop them fighting in these forums.

• At any rate, after I have warned both, rather than blocked, DC then goes and posts here in loud, angry fashion, which is exactly what he is specifically banned from doing. Unsurprisingly, he gets blocked. I am extremely sceptical that this was a surprise to him. At any rate, if someone wants to amend the block length (to anywhere from 48 hours up), then please do so, but please do not unblock without talking it over with me first unless some vast and extremely overwhelming community consensus appears. I will be asleep for the next 8 hours or so, but back online then to talk it through some more if required. Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• DC coming here to defend his actions following an accusation of ban violation was fine. His tone in doing so shouldn't factor in. A topic ban shouldn't preclude reporting violations of it, and if that's the case, it needs to be expressed explicitly in the ban terms that an admin's talk page or email are the only acceptable venues for reporting violations. If that's the not the case, the posting to ANI from either party regarding possible violation should not be used as evidence of violation themselves. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• (EC) *:Diffs for the assertions in the first part please? (Not meaning for that to be jerky, but I seriously can't find the exact wording implemented). Secondly, I don't understand why you would think DC should be unable to respond to this request. Unless I missed something, that was his first and only post to this section. This whole thing was the biggest baiting I've seen in a while, don't act surprised that someone rises to it. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have read through this entire thread, and frankly, I feel like I am a kindergarten teacher trying to control a bunch of 3-year-olds. This is ridiculous. DC's initial complaint on Errant's talk page is about reverting obvious vandalism. This is childish. Prioryman's response to this is equally childish. Ignoring it would have been the right thing to do. Given the interaction ban, I would be in favor of a short block for Prioryman (perhaps 24-72 hours). I am also in favor of a much longer block for DC, but 75 days is cruel and unusual punishment. I am going to reduce that to 10 days, which will be by far the longest block on his block log at this point. I'm not going to block Prioryman myself, but I think that it would be plausible if someone else decided to. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • On the matter of Prioryman's edits to Battlefield Earth (film): these are covered by his ARBSCI sanctions, which are:
  • 17) ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • page moves • rights) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[161] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.
  • ChrisO (Prioryman) was the editor who originally took that article to FA status. Under the terms of his sanction, he is entitled to make edits for the purpose of "directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources". This is reasonably interpreted to mean that he is allowed to maintain his FAs in the topic area, and is allowed to revert vandalism thereto. By my reading, his recent half a dozen edits to that article did not violate his Scientology topic ban. --JN466 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from DC's talk SÆdon^talk): This is a ridiculous block that has little relevance to the issue at hand and will not stand. If Moreschi wants to play tough guy and refuses to unblock, I'm sure someone else will do so eventually. The community is not well served by admins who are more interested in reducing the "drama" than solving the problem. Prioryman's tiresome bleating seems to have distracted people from the central point that he agreed to abide by editing restrictions in order to be allowed to continue editing. He has repeatedly violated those restrictions and will continue to do so. This very thread is a violation of one of those restrictions. If the community was not serious about the sanctions, they should be withdrawn. If they are serious about them, they should ensure that they are properly recorded and that they are enforced. Framing this as a dispute between editors is really just ignoring what is at the root of the issue. Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Evaluating the block

This block by User:Moreschi is appalling. First of all, the interaction ban was voluntary. Secondly, ErrantX clearly stated that his talk page was exempt from it ("my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban)"). Thirdly, ErrantX promised he would make sure Prioryman's sanctions were correctly logged, which he failed to do, and DC was reminding him of. Fourthly, Prioryman is misrepresenting SirFozzie when he describes the interaction ban above as "one arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [72]". SirFozzie stated that "folks under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request." This refers to folks under ARBCC sanctions; besides, DC did not comment on that request or at RFAR, but on ErrantX's talk page about ErrantX's admitted tardiness in doing what he had promised to do (and which was part of the interaction ban deal). Fifth, Prioryman has broken the voluntary interaction ban by posting here and at AE. Sixth, 75 days is completely, utterly, absurdly over the top even if there were grounds for a block. Seventh, looking at DC's talk page, it seems rather clearly the result of a rush of blood on Moreschi's part. Please!

• Unblock Delicious carbuncle, trout Moreschi. Not his finest hour. --JN466 23:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lessen to 48 hours, same for Prioryman They both screwed up, 48 hours for the first screwup seems ok to me. Arkon (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Block reduced to 10 days. I'd support a 48 hour block for Prioryman, but I'm hesitant to make that particular decision without further discussion. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 23:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, I am the victim here. I am being stalked and harassed. I thought after the interaction ban was imposed that I would not have to put up with DC again. Instead, just a few hours ago, he posted that he was "reviewing [Prioryman's] contributions for violations of his many sanctions" [sic] [73]. That is blatant wikistalking, and is exactly what he was forbidden to do. ErrantX declined to act on this violation and said to take it to another admin. Timotheus Canens and Cailil on AE advised that it was the wrong forum [74] [75], and Lothar von Richthofen advised that it be taken to AN/I instead [76]. That is exactly what I have done. Why should I be sanctioned for following the advice of others and asking, once and for all, for this harassment and stalking to be stopped? What was the point of the interaction ban in the first place if it's not going to stop this individual's constant attempts to get at me? I am not the one continuing this dispute! Prioryman (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DC violated the topic ban, and that gives Prioryman the right to report it. Seems like common sense to me. Though going forward, if reporting violations is limited to email or talk pages, the ban restrictions should be amended to include that. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DC posted on ErrantX's talk page, which was agreed to be out of scope of the interaction ban. I don't think his posting there victimised you; you could have completely ignored it, or put your side in an e-mail to ErrantX, or indeed on ErrantX's talk page. No? --JN466 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thought experiment for Prioryman: what do you think would have happened if you had completely ignored DC's comment on Errant's talk page (about your edit to revert obvious vandalism)? Consider that it seemed likely that every other admin would have ignored his comment as well. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I already answered that question elsewhere but I'll spell it out for you. DC has expressed his explicit intention to continue stalking my edits. Two days after he posted on ErrantX's talk page, DC posted here that he was "reviewing [Prioryman's] contributions for violations". The obvious implication is that DC is compiling some kind of dossier or case against me, either to post to ErrantX's talk page or on the "monitoring" thread that he is maintaining about me on Wikipedia Review. The interaction ban was supposed to prevent any interactions, and this specific type of interaction - his attempts to "police" my edits - is the exact reason why the interaction ban was imposed in the first place. (Read the original AN discussion linked at the top of this thread.) I've had no choice but to report this violation here because DC has made it clear that he intends further violations. Frankly I would have dropped the matter if DC hadn't been so explicit about his intentions to continue harassing me in violation of the interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock in exchange for DC agreeing to stick to the original agreement, i.e. no comments on Prioryman except about modifications of the interaction ban and that only on ErrantX's page, and reports of violations of the interaction ban only via email. This would mean that DC agrees that he is not supposed to report (perceived) violations of Prioryman's ArbCom restrictions, as these do not involve this interaction ban. Count Iblis (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point ErrantX should be removed from the process. This incident has demonstrated his unwillingness to enforce it. Arkon (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Undo block or block both DC and Prioryman DC deserved a right to respond to the ANI post to defend himself. He was blocked for making one post. As you can see above, Prioryman continues to post in this thread. Why was DC blocked and not Prioryman? There hasn't been equal treatment here. I would say either lift DC's block, or block the both of them for engaging in identical behavior. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked direct questions by Arkon, JN466 and Scottywong, which I've answered to the best of my ability. It's late now, and I'm tired, so I don't propose to contribute further to this discussion tonight. Prioryman (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is somewhat related...Prioryman, you have banned me from your talk page several times, yet you have appeared in almost every single administrative forum or noticeboard discussion to oppose me over the last six months or so which I initiated or was the primary player. If you don't want to interact with me, then why do you follow me around Wikipedia trying to give me a hard time? Do you think your behavior towards me is related to the way you are dealing with this issue with DC? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's I guess the paradox of this sort of a situation and why I think formal interaction bans or informal ones are not a good thing. You have (in general) two people who don't get along, precisely because they do adversly interact with each other, and then you want to do someting about the negative interactions by making an agreement to not to interact with each other. But the underlying problems are then not resolved, the negative interactions are just a symptom of these problems plus the inability to self-moderate when talking to each other. So, perhaps better to impose a "forced interaction restriction" where two such people are only allowed to collaborate with each other on a few articles for a while :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a compelling view. IMO, what is happening here is that DC is trying to resolve what he feels are some leftover baggage from Prioryman's previous account(s). Prioryman takes exception to DC's efforts. If WP's administration (represented in this case, I guess, by ErrantX) would give a definitive answer to DC's question, that might help things. DC didn't interact with Prioryman in this instance, he asked ErrantX to follow-up on his earlier request. Prioryman took exception to DC's question even though it was not in a forum in which Prioryman was participating and escalated the drama. The underlying problem remains...does DC have a legitimate grievance with how Prioryman's prior record of sanctions is being handled and is WP's administration addressing it? If not, should they? If not, then DC needs to be told so and the decision needs to be recorded somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• If there's a legitimate issue regarding Prioryman's sanctions, any one of the 48,402,329 editors who are not subject to an interact ban with him can follow up on it. That's the whole point. 28bytes (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Per my reasoning on DC's talk. SÆdon^talk 09:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block of DC. The difference between the two is this: Prioryman's actions in all of this were narrowly focussed on the perceived need to enforce the interaction ban, triggered by its previous violation by DC. DC's response above in this thread, in contrast, was not focussed on solving this present issue (e.g. defending himself etc), but on re-hashing the old dispute, i.e. repeating exactly the kind of behaviour that the interaction ban was meant to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Which block are you endorsing? The 75 or the now reduced to 10? Arkon (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well, 75 was maybe a bit on the long side, but the next time something like this happens, a block of that length might well be on the table again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block DC should know better. He's certainly been around the block enough times. Furthermore, this entire mess is his fault in the first place. If he could restrain his urge to be wiki-mall cop then this entire thread wouldn't exist. Jtrainor (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block clearly still stalking the other editor and showing no signs of wanting to stop that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Some chronology

I may be in the minority here, but I think Moreschi was perfectly correct to block DC after all this. Here's what I see:

1. Prioryman going about his business, not bothering anyone.
2. DC posts to ErrantX's talk page to start yet another thread about Prioryman.
3. A bunch of pointless drama ensues.

If DC stopped posting about Prioryman, we wouldn't have to go through this garbage constantly. DC just needs to leave Prioryman alone, and if he's not willing to do that, a block is perfectly appropriate. Just take a look at his response to being blocked. Not even the slightest hint of recognition that he needs to leave Prioryman alone, just a bunch of WP:NOTTHEM nonsense about how awful Prioryman is, how "Moreschi wants to play tough guy", etc., etc. This is not a good thing. If DC is willing to acknowledge that he should not be starting threads about Prioryman, and commit to not doing it anymore, anywhere, I would support an immediate unblock. But he needs to get it first.

Quite obviously what got this particular episode started was DC posting about something Prioryman did that had nothing to do with DC, and DC was rightfully blocked for it. If Prioryman had started a thread about DC doing something that had nothing to do with Prioryman, then he should have been blocked too. But blocking Prioryman for requesting the interaction ban be enforced is a completely asinine idea: enforcing the interaction ban is the only way to get these two to shut up about each other. Just letting them test the edges on ErrantX's talk page or wherever leads to more threads like this. Whoever starts it gets blocked, period. DC started it, Moreschi blocked him, and if DC has a "light bulb" moment and gets why he was blocked, we can unblock him and hope we never have to see one of these idiotic threads again. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Perfect explanation. Silverseren^C 03:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, DC said to Errant that Prioryman's various sanctions are still not correctly or fully logged. Now, if that is so, don't you agree it should be fixed? It was part of the deal last time round. [77]. Yet it still hasn't been done. I can't agree that DC pointing that out, when everybody had forgotten – again – is entirely useless.

We must also note in the timeline that

• Prioryman e-mailed Moreschi today before Moreschi blocked DC [78].
• Prioryman posted to your talk page too and e-mailed you today [79][80] before you made your comments here, no doubt based on your involvement in the March interaction ban discussion.
• Prioryman posted to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page [81].
• Prioryman posted to SirFozzie's talk page several times [82][83].
• Prioryman asked to speak to Carcharoth on IRC [84].

People tend to be wary when they see one party in a dispute contacting multiple admins, and then see some of these admins who have had personal contact with just one of the parties intervening decisively.

I also see Prioryman commenting in AfDs, since the interaction ban, shortly after DC has already commented, and in the opposite way: see [85], [86] (the latter being an AfD that DC raised, and where Prioryman then was one of the first to vote keep).

All in all, I do not see Prioryman stepping away. Evidence suggests that he is following DC's contributions, and sought to fully capitalise on DC's post – made on a talk page that was explicitly exempt from the interaction ban – by contacting half a dozen administrators, and himself violating the interaction ban to start noticeboard threads. Prioryman's aggression is on a completely different scale to DC's here, and very specifically focused on getting sanctions. I see no admin contacts initiated by Delicious carbuncle in his or her edit history. Again, in disputes like this, it's the editor who gives the appearance of canvassing admins that makes me more uneasy. We've seen this before, especially at AE, and it should not be allowed to work: justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done.

And lastly, I repeat that -- apparently -- we still do not have Prioryman's sanctions from his previous accounts properly logged. Perhaps we could keep in mind that we should achieve certainty on this point here, and perhaps Prioryman would be so good as to assist this time. JN466 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things: if there is unfinished business regarding Prioryman's sanctions, why can't you or Cla68 work with ArbCom or whomever to get it sorted? Either it's important, in which case WP:SOFIXIT, or it isn't. Am I correct that nobody – including you, Cla68 and ErrantX – have done anything about it since the last time DC brought it up? I have no idea if it's important or not, but the idea that it's only important when DC's bringing attention to it seems a little strange.

Secondly, Prioryman seemed perfectly fine with the resolution to this being a note from Moreschi to DC to knock it off. If DC had just acknowledged the warning instead of launching an AN/I tirade and posting yet another edit summary taunting Prioryman by linking to an old account of his (the exact same thing he got blocked for doing last time), we'd all have moved onto other things by now.

My preferred solution to this is that DC gets why this is not the kind of thing you do when you're under an interaction ban with someone, agrees to drop the stick, gets unblocked and we put this whole mess behind us. And then you, Cla68 and anyone else who's not interaction-banned with Prioryman can sort out the sanctions business. 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I just spent half an hour and have located a list of prior sanctions the arbitrators compiled here. If that's complete (and I have no reason to think it wasn't), then WP:RESTRICT should be up to date now, and we should be able to put this one to rest. Cheers. JN466 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, you don't see anything wrong with Prioryman messaging all those admins? Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@JN: thanks for sorting that out. Always nice when we can put things to rest. @Cla68: presumably he wanted to draw sympathetic eyes to the situation, kind of like you did by starting a Wikipediocracy thread about it. Probably a little canvass-y of both of you, to be honest, but I'm not too inclined to get worked up about it. 28bytes (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My intention with the Wikipediocracy thread was to put public pressure on Prioryman to stop being so obsessive about things, i.e. to correct his behavior. And that's the same thing I'm trying to do here. I don't post to Wikipediacracy with the intention of canvassing for support, because I know by experience that equal, if not more, numbers of observers of that forum are likely to go against whatever is being advocated there. That's why it isn't canvassing to post there, because everyone can see it. Prioryman didn't post in a publicly viewable forum, he emailed or messaged several admins. You don't see a problem with that? DC was blocked for making a single comment on an ANI thread. Prioryman emails several admins trying to get them on his side. Who has the higher moral ground here? Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a mod there, I presume you discuss editors and events here in private forums there, no? 28bytes (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting off track here.... Arkon (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, what 28bytes says. I would dearly love to give DC a "lightbulb moment" where he goes "aha!", and, Scrooge-like, finally sees what he is doing wrong. He simply does not need to make himself responsible for sorting out whatever problems Prioryman may be causing. There is an entire community of responsible editors, administrators and non-administrators, willing and able to do so. All he is doing is wasting everyone's time by causing even more dramaboard nonsense, caused by Prioryman - understandably enough, I think - feeling stalked and harassed.
• A couple misconceptions to clear up. Prioryman's email to me noted on my talkpage was relating to the warnings I gave them both - he wanted some minor cleanup, which I haven't done as events overtook this. This was before DC flamed out on ANI and did not contain any calls to block anyone. At this point Prioryman was actually happy with the outcome, which is definitely a point in his favour. DC, however, continued to unrepentantly press the issue and seems completely averse to disengagement, even when explicitly told "back off or you get blocked". I really don't see another way around this short of compelling that disengagement at the point of escalating blocks.
• If DC does have this eureka moment and commits, once and for all, to leaving Prioryman alone - ignoring him completely, not following his edits, just not mentioning his name on Wikipedia here at all, then I guess we can unblock him. I don't think this is going to happen, so as it is I'm fine with the 10 days' block Scotty put in place. YMMV on block lengths, as always. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

See statement by DC below. Part of that reads, "I will not mention Prioryman on-wiki, at all, anywhere, in any context, unless I have been told that I may do so. If I perceive that Prioryman has violated the terms of the interaction ban, I am apparently expected to start a thread on ANI asking for enforcement, but it is clear that I would be immediately blocked if I did this, so I will instead email an admin." Are folks happy with that? --JN466 16:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This leaves me in two minds: on the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable commitment, but he had made similar promises in the context of his last unblock too, and both then and now his comments show not the slightest sign of understanding that what he did was actually wrong, so I'm not really confident he won't be seeking some new loophole again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only loophole I see is mentioning other accounts operated or believed to have been operated by Prioryman. That loophole could be closed. --JN466 16:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of others, quite similar to what happened here today. That's why I want the additional clarifications I sketched out in my proposal below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your wording looks okay, including Prioryman's addition. The only thing worries me is that I can't realistically see either of these editors ever making an ANI post about their interaction ban that would not somehow involve a comment on the other. Would you consider going with DC's preference, i.e. that either party would have to e-mail an admin, who can then raise the matter for community discussion (not sanction the other editor!) if they think the matter has merit and should be discussed at WP:AN? --JN466 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to leave these things on-wiki, because it's more transparent. I don't think it should be so difficult for a complainant to restrict their complaint to something simple and factual like: "X is interaction-banned from me. Today, he turned up on a page I had just edited, reverted me, and left me an aggressive edit summary. Can somebody please tell him no to?" That would be quite okay. What would not be okay is: "X reverted me and left me an aggressive edit summary. That's so typical of X again. He has been doing that for years, and he's overall totally disruptive. Remember, last year I had to report him for biting that innocent newbie! Oh, and he's also been edit-warring on that other page for the last few days." That would not be okay. Likewise, for the other party, it would be absolutely okay to respond with "Sorry, didn't even notice Y had been editing that article. My edit summary wasn't even directed at him". What would not be okay would be a response like "Ah, sure, that's Y again with his dishonest accusations. Don't you all see what a nasty piece of work Y is. By the way, I suspect he is in reality from Boise and has hidden sympathies for sword-wielding-skeleton theorists!" It shouldn't really be difficult for two reasonably intelligent adults to stay on the safe side in this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I now see in DC's latest posting on his talkpage [87] that he is still refusing to accept even as much as the idea that his posting on ErrantX's page the other day was a violation of the interaction ban – and that not merely because it was on the allegedly "exempt" page, but also because it wasn't "for Prioryman" but only "related to him". This shows to what lengths DC is prepared to go wikilawyering his way around the restriction, and how little prepared he is to let the matter go. He is still refusing to grasp that he is not only expected not to talk to the other guy, but also not to talk about him, and he is still determined to keep actively seeking loopholes. With this stance of denial on DC's part, I really see little basis for an unblock, not now and really not in ten days either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone had left this message on my talk page: "Per both your agreements I am imposing a binding interaction ban on you and Prioryman. Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom. I hope that satisfies everyone. " (my emphasis) I would have read that to mean that Errant's talk page is excluded from the ban. So would most reasonable people. JN466 14:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was only that, yes. But you are forgetting the very clear additional message given to him later, here. He knew that he was not supposed to use that exemption as a loophole for continuing the fight, rather than for making mere procedural requests if and when necessary. Also, you are forgetting that he is now claiming yet another, independent reason why he thinks the posting was okay. It is mainly this new, additional argument that shows he's unwilling to accept a change in behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above comment by User:Future Perfect demonstrates an inability to understand to simplest of instructions in the English language. Is there some remedial text on English comprehension that can be given to administrators, to ensure that such lapses do not occur in the future? John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that FPaS's interpretation of the ban represents community consensus; logically the wording used by the closing admin (ErrantX) should be considered effective. It's inconsistent enforcement that Prioryman received the same ban, was not sanctioned for for starting and making multiple edits to this ANI thread, and when DC contributes he is then first warned and blocked. Nobody Ent 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in FPas we have something of Colonel Cathcart. John lilburne (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from ErrantX

Unfortunately I seem to have dropped the administrative ball on this. Apologies; yesterday was a awkward day for me. To give some background on this IBAN...

A little while ago trouble erupted at AN between these two editors - and after investigation it became clear that they simply could not leave each other alone. DC felt it was his role to police Prioryman's work and Prioryman couldn't seem to resist rising to DC's bait. After a fairly stressful effort I got fed up to the extent that I stopped trying to be accommodating to both of their demands and pushed an IBAN (partially at their request).

The whole point, I should add, was simply to get them to disengage and go their seperate ways. I'm a big believer in the idea that avoiding drama is generally the best way to go.

Following that IBAN, DC made this edit. Rather than re-escalate the drama I let it slide as a final shot fired in the war. Another admin disagreed (which is fine) and blocked DC. But fortunately the IBAN seemed to stick and the situation de-escalated. And just to put the record straight; the wording of the IBAN might have been a little lax, for which I apologise, but for the purposes of clarity I intended my talk page only to be used to discuss removing the IBAN or to raise violations.

Fast forward 6 weeks and DC opened a new thread on my talk page. In part following up on my undertaking to review Prioryman's sanctions (to those who mention this above; it was my understanding privacy concerns exist, so I asked Arbcom, privately, to look into resolving the matter). And in another part showing he had not stopped keeping an eye on Prioryman. I immediately removed the post to discourage drama and thought about it a little - my preference was simply to ignore the matter on the basis of a "first strike" (or whatever). Ideally Prioryman would have ignored the matter and that would be that.

But he couldn't; and what makes me feel he is uninterested in actually resolving this issue is that instead of asking me to take more pro-active action he sent me this and took the matter straight to Arbitration Enforcement (big escalation). Even at that stage I hoped it would de-escalate, but once this hit AN/I and Prioryman contacted a bunch of admins (I'm not sure to what purpose) things are clearly out of hand. The AFD links posted by someone else above are also compelling; if Prioryman is this concerned about being under DC's scrutiny I'd expect to see him take more care to avoid pages where DC is active.

What is unfortunate is this comment on 3rd May in which DC clearly misunderstands the point of the IBAN - which is to keep these two editors away from each other. I really had a {{facepalm}} moment reading that.

I'm not sure where to go from here; I'd be more compelled to agree with a block reduction for DC if he would undertake just to leave Prioryman alone, to ignore him and so forth. His recent postings seem entirely contrary to that. Equally it needs to be pressed on Prioryman that a critical aspect of resolving this is to ignore comments by DC about his editing - at least until such a point as they become widespread. I reiterate that had Prioryman undertaken to ignore DC's May 1 comment none of this would have happened and presumably both editors would have been happily having a stress free week.

I want to make one other comment which is that I'm in an awkward position here - I implemented the IBAN, but I don't want to be the sole arbitrator of it - I am lenient by nature and anyway one admin holding the keys to an administrative matter is bad practice. (it should be pointed out I also have recently interacted with DC on an unrelated matter, which clouds the issue further). The community needs to adopt this IBAN, or whatever other sanction, and deal firmly with these two. --Errant ^(chat!) 06:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that the admin who previously blocked DC, after what you called a parting shot above, was Future Perfect at Sunrise. (The block was made more than 12 hours after the edit in question, and was later undone by another admin.) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is of course also in the list above, among the admins Prioryman contacted today, but he is also in the old arbitration case which I cited above, which includes a specific arbitration finding that Future Perfect at Sunrise had advance knowledge of Prioryman's actions (which led to his desysopping in that case). --JN466 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not had any private communication with Prioryman for years, and dragging up that old Arbcom case is pretty far-fetched (there wasn't even any wrongdoing implied in that finding). In this case, his message on my talk page was nothing more than the mandatory notification which he was obliged to give for mentioning me on ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I now recall that you had another sanction against Delicious carbuncle overturned at AE a little over a year ago; and I see that Courcelles commented, in the decision to overturn your sanction on procedural grounds, "The process on this stinks all the way around". Prioryman was on your talk page immediately prior to your (also overturned) block of Delicious carbuncle in March as well. It just doesn't look good. It makes you look like you are part of the struggle, rather than an impartial arbiter. Cheers. --JN466 15:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis

Chronology: Ban enacted, excludes ErrantX talk page. DC posts on ErrantX talk page, is acknowledge/removed. About a day later, Prioryman starts this thread, violates ban. DC replies, also violates ban, is blocked (fine block). Comment: neither editor seems to notice the beam in their own eyes as they're so focused on the mote in the others. Proposal; new, improved ban. Either editor mentions the other anywhere on Wikipedia (publicly or via email) for any reason, block for escalating periods of time. Nobody Ent 10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a tweak indeed, but a slightly different one. Truth is that an interaction ban is unworkable if there isn't some opportunity for one party to complain if the other party breaks it. However, we need to channel such complaints in a better way. We know that ErrantX originally intended the exemption of his own talkpage to serve as such a venue. However, he is now saying that he wishes to be no longer alone responsible for administering the situation (quite reasonable), and we have seen that DC has twice misused this venue for something it was not intended for, i.e. for resuming and re-hashing the original dispute. So, my proposal is: replace ErrantX's original wording of the exemption "If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban)" with something along the lines of: "Appeals of this sanction, or complaints about breaches of it by the other party, may be directed to WP:AN. In any such appeal or report, and in any follow-up discussion, the parties must restrict themselves to brief, matter-of-fact statements focussed exclusively on the resolution of the present situation, but remain otherwise bound to the original prohibition of referring to earlier perceived wrongdoings or otherwise rehashing their previous disagreements." Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with that wording, but suggest amending the last line to add the following wording (highlighted in bold), to prevent new topics of contention being raised: "... but remain otherwise bound to the original prohibition of referring to earlier perceived wrongdoings, rehashing their previous disagreements or bringing new complaints about matters unrelated to the operation of the interaction ban." Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason specifically my talk page was used is because noticeboards were a point of contention on the original issue - so it was an easy way to get it in place. As this isn't going to be resolved amicably, employing AN over my talk page is much better. If they both will now accept that then I think it is the way to go. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept it, but please see my comments below about practical steps that I think DC needs to take in order to prevent a recurrence of this episode. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's proposed addition makes sense. --JN466 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Truth is that an interaction ban is unworkable if there isn't some opportunity for one party to complain if the other party breaks it. It is from a certain point of view; X mentions Y, no one notices -- no disruption to Wikipedia. X mentions Y, someone notices, X is blocked for a while -- minimal disruption to WP. X mentions Y, Y complains/reports/mentions X, both blocked for a while -- minimal disruption to WP. Other stuff has been tried -- discuss on AN, don't discuss on AN -- lots of mudslinging and cliques and debate back and forth -- which all helps Wikipedia how exactly? Nobody Ent 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to take it to one's most trusted admin, off-wiki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What some secret hugger muggerings in dark corners, is that how it should be done? John lilburne (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That sentence does not compute. Try again. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone give me DC address? I take a lot photographs of bugs during the year, and I don't think I have a anything from the Carbuncle family. I also photograph a lot of historical things, and I'm guessing that DC probably live near to some sort of fortification, so that would be a double hit, hopefully they'll also be a law court in the vicinity too. John lilburne (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking DC

I note that DC is being encouraged by a couple of individuals to appeal his block again (having been refused once already). I don't object to this in principle but I do have some practical concerns which I would like to be addressed before any unblock is actioned:

1. He hasn't acknowledged that he was in any way at fault;
2. He still seems to think that the interaction ban allows him to monitor and report my edits, which was the cause of the original dispute;
3. He has given no commitment that he is going to do what he was supposed to do and leave me alone entirely.

I don't want to go through this kind of mess yet again and frankly, after two flagrant violations in only six weeks, I have no reason to trust DC to uphold his side of the interaction ban. So I'd like to request that if DC is unblocked, he should be required first to explicitly and publicly acknowledge that he recognises that he did not comply with the ban, that he is prohibited from raising any issue about me that is unrelated to the operation of the ban, that he will desist from monitoring or reporting my edits to see if they violate any policies or sanctions, and that he will permanently commit to not discussing me or raising issues about me (other than in relation to the operation of the ban) on-wiki, off-wiki and via email. If he won't commit to those things - all of which are required by the ban, and all of which I'm upholding on my side of it - then he is not committed to the goal of total disengagement and there is every likelihood that this episode will be repeated. I don't want that to happen and I'm sure all the people here whose patience has been taxed would prefer to avoid it too. Prioryman (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How the hell is this -possibly- acceptable, given the reaction ban? Or is blocking for such a flagrant abuse of restrictions "too much drama" now it's been done by one of your mates, Errant?101.118.15.254 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, random IP. Re Prioryman - yes, I agree with these points, and do not think DC should be unblocked until he gets his "eureka" moment (see my post above in the analysis section). With this said it's probably best if you walk away from it all right now. DC is currently blocked and I cannot imagine any admin unblocking at this point without a firm commitment to ignoring you in the future. There is little more you can productively contribute at this point to the thread without stirring the pot further. I'd take a break and go do something relaxing and therapeutic, either on-wiki or off. Moreschi (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I have nothing further to add anyway and I've already agreed to Fut Perf's refinement of the ban. Thanks (to you and others) for your efforts to resolve this issue. Prioryman (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way to handle an interaction ban violation is to take it to your most trusted admin, behind the scenes, and let them deal with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied from DC's talk page:

I did not think that I was violating the interaction ban by making my post on ErrantX's talk page. If I had, I would not have made the post, or at least would have expected to be blocked. In fact, as far as I can tell, my current block is actually for posting in the ANI thread, which is completely perverse. ErrantX's talk page was explicitly excluded from the ban. I have no problem if people wish to change the terms of the ban to include the totality of Wikipedia, but I resent the implication that I was in violation of the ban as laid out. I will not mention Prioryman on-wiki, at all, anywhere, in any context, unless I have been told that I may do so. If I perceive that Prioryman has violated the terms of the interaction ban, I am apparently expected to start a thread on ANI asking for enforcement, but it is clear that I would be immediately blocked if I did this, so I will instead email an admin. I consider the current block to be completely unjustified, but I will wait it out if need be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC) --JN466 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Where a person reasonably believes that making a comment on an admin's talk page is proper, and the admin appears to also think it was reasonable, then the rest of ths contretemps is silly. Unblock, have some tea (or stout, depending on which you prefer) and defuse all of this balderdash. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the latest unblock request. My reading of the situation is that he still doesn't see the problem in continuing to review the contributions of someone he has an interaction ban with. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I wish you had left it to someone with a less obvious connection to Wiki UK. --JN466 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

He should be indef blocked until he sees the light.Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams. --JN466 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool story. Blocks exist to enforce sanctions, not punishment. By most accounts either DC doesnt "get it" or is not willing to abide by the sanction he willingly agreed to enter. If he would acknolwedge the he messed up and agreeed not to do it again, then the block should be removed now, otherwise an expiring block serves no puprose as he still thinks he is in the right and this issue could surface once again. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has agreed to stick to the strict interpretation of the interacton ban and should thus be unblocked. If he stays blocked, then the only thing he will be doing here during the next week is argue about his block, which is PM related issue, and thus the opposite of what most here want DC to do on Wikipedia. From DC's perspective (however wrong that may be), there is a difference between the terms of the interaction ban he originally agreed to and the strict interpretation he is asked to stick to now.

So, when he is asked to acknowledge that he made a mistake, he is going argue that he did nothing wrong because he didn't violate the terms of the agreement as he understood it at the time. To me this sounds like a silly irrelevant discussion, what matters is that similar problems won't happen again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DC needs to acknowledge that he abused the spirit of the IB by using ErrantX's talk page to bait PM, and in the future if he has an issue with PM to take it off-wiki per the suggestion made by BaseballBugs. His wiki-lawering/mall cop crap isnt helping. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In this whole issue I side with PM, but it is quite clear to me that the spirit of the agreement between DC and PM was different from the perspective of both. PM wanted to stop DC from following him, DC continues to have problems with some aspects of PMs editing. An agreement was made between the two to stop the negative aspects of their interaction. But both sides had different goals here. What matters now is that DC has agreed to stick to the letter of the new proposal, which will guarantee that the same thing cannot repeat itself.

Otherwise, at best after a few days of heated debates, you may get DC to acknowledge that if the spirit of the original agreement was meant to imply that he wasn't supposed to do what he did, then he violated the spirit of the original agreement, but he would the not agree that that was the spirit of the agreement as he understood it at the time. Would that be enough to get DC unblocked? I doubt it, because it would fall short of "DC pleading guilty" in the sense of admitting that he willfully violated the terms of the agreement.

So, I really don't see the point of such debates. If there is any doubt about what DC should now agree to, just write up some unambiguous text that doesn't need any second guessing as to what the "spirit" of that is, let DC say that he'll stick to that and then unblock DC. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would someone else mind reviewing my decline of DC's second unblock request? Another editor (other than DC) has expressed concerns that I was entirely the wrong admin to administer this unblock request and while I don't consider myself involved with either party to this dispute, for the avoidance of doubt it would help if another admin reconsidered DC's second unblock request. ϢereSpielChequers 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, not sure if you're asking for a review or for some action but, after scanning this entire report I don't think DeliciousCarbuncle should have been blocked in the first place. For one thing, monitoring edits is not the same thing as interacting with a user. And, second, IBAN explicitly allows the asking for clarifications and/or for the taking of some action against the ibanned editor. I think your decline reason was mistaken here (a rare one!) and, assuming that your intent on posting here at ANI was to allow another admin to overturn your decline, I'll do just that. (If you were merely seeking comment, feel free to restore the decline and the block.) --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Unless, I am misreading this [88] DC has an odd focus for "much of his efforts" on Wikipedia: other editors. This could be a source of the problem, as the job requires focus on content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the focus is an odd one. Reeks of conspiracy theories and the like. However, given the circumstances, perhaps there is some hyperbole in the comment. Disclosure: I just unblocked DeliciousCarbuncle. Though I think I've seen the name before, I have had no prior interaction with that user and am noting his/her presence on wikipedia for the first time :) --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat uninvolved editor request

Whatever happens to Delicious Carbuncle at this point happens. It seems like he did violate the terms of the IBAN, per a very strict take on the close here.

DC got in trouble for asking ErrantX if he had done everything he said he was going to do in his close of the IBAN thread. Part 1 was 'Impose a customized IBAN on these two editors', Part 2 was "follow up with Arbcom in the next few days to see about listing Prioryman's active sanctions appropriately".

These two things don't seem explicitly connected, but its an awfully fine line. Part 1 was obviously done. Can someone please go ahead and check Part 2 so that it can be off the to-do list? This will also remove the incentive for any editor to continue to focus on it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not good enough

Now that block editors are equally unblocked, rather than have a Raiders of the Lost Ark instructions (make the staff ten cubits -- then subtract two!) let's make a single, definitive, crystal clear statement of the ban. Nobody Ent 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't look at (each other)! Shut your eyes! Don't look at (each other), no matter what happens! -- paraphrasing from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Maybe each of them could imagine the other is the Ark of the Covenant being opened and if they interact, their faces will melt. -- Avanu (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Per both party's agreements, the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom, but reporting the other editor for perceived violations on wiki is not permitted." Nobody Ent 17:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A few follow-up requests for clarification:

1. DC has stated that he is monitoring my edits and has stated a wish to join an arbitration case or RfC/U (God knows on what pretext) against me. Is either activity permitted? Please make it explicitly clear whether this is compatible with the interaction ban.
2. What assurances have been given, on or off-wiki, on this matter, concerning compliance with the ban?
3. I suggest amending the last clause to "for reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with perceived violations of any restrictions, guideline or policy is not permitted."
4. Typo in the same line: "made by made", which I imagine is supposed to be "to be made".
5. I also suggest amending the end of the second sentence to: "at any venue, including user talk pages of third parties." Typo in the 3rd sentence, "then ban". Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody's draft (although personally I would have preferred hypothetical future complaints/reports to be made in an on-wiki venue rather than per mail to an admin, but I can live with this version too.) I think the wording is otherwise clear enough. To Pm's questions: we have no control over what he reads or doesn't read, so trying to prohibit "monitoring" is probably futile. As for any exemption for potential participation in future Arbcom or RfCs, DC has said himself that he would have to ask Arbcom for that purpose, so basically that falls under the "appeal" category. I'd certainly hope Arbcom would not grant such an appeal, because if both of you stick to the restriction otherwise he couldn't possibly have any open business with you that would make his participation in such a process necessary, but of course he'd be free to ask for such an exemption via the appeals process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Per both party's your agreements the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue (to include any page on a website owned by The Wikimedia Foundation). If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom, but reporting the other editor for perceived violations is not permitted." I'm not aware of any assurances made -- but that is not the point. The point is to describe the ban with sufficient clarity that the involved editors understand the terms and such that, upon review, administrators will clearly know when a violation has occurred or not. Rather than list specific places than ban occurs -- complexity leads to loopholes -- I've simply defined "any" more clearly.

Wikipedia has no control of what happens off-wiki so I'm not including that in the ban. (If that's a roadblock, then someone else will have to finish the drafting because I'm not smart enough to actually write such a ban in a way that can actually be enforced.) Nobody Ent 18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Prioryman, how would anyone know if he's monitoring you or not? Unless he says he's doing it, no way to know, so it's irrelevant. RfC/U counts as commenting or interacting, obviously. Would you like to have an RfC/U done on yourself?
2. Each of you pick a contact admin that is willing and you like to deal with if you see a problem with violations of the ban. Agree to do whatever they say on the subject or get blocked. You won't contact anyone else other than your designated admin. Off-wiki, can't control, its a non-issue.

I feel the following revision may express the community sentiment and provide absolute clarity to both parties:

"Per both your agreements the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with any perceived violations of Wikipedia restrictions, guidelines or policies is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom. To sum up, do not think about, mention, or obsess about anything to do with each other. Leave each other alone, and no one in the community should see any evidence that you acknowledge each other's existence."

How's that version? -- Avanu (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick with discussing the single version, which I didn't actually write per se -- it was mostly a copy/paste of ErrantX's previous IBAN statement, DCs unblock request and RegentSparks' unblock statement (which I guess means I just COPYVIO three editors.) Nobody Ent 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Its essentially the same as yours, but I reordered your sentences to make it more in line with the escalation order. And then added the summation, which is an entirely optional addition, but I think it expresses the sentiment very clearly. -- Avanu (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave out the "to sum up" part, in particular "obsess"; the interaction ban is needed precisely because it's not possible for at least one of them to not obsess about the other. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so:

Per mutual agreement of Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman, the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with any perceived violations of Wikipedia restrictions, guidelines or policies is not permitted. However, if either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the terms of the interaction ban, that editor will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom.

-- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion In the unlikely event if one of the editors wants to discuss the policy and it requires interaction from the other party, that request should be initiated by email to an administrator. At that point, should an administrator wish to get involved they would open a thread on their (the admins) talk page and both parties would be exempted from the IB in that limited scope. The thread should also be limited to the *policy* and not other disputes. The admin should attempt to keep the thread narrowly construed and close it as soon as possible. In addition, community block lengths should be added to this policy so each editor knows the consequences and will think twice before violating the IB. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it better if we let administrators use their judgement if contacted by either party. My goal here to make a simple definitive comprehensive ban statement; I have every confidence once the terms are understood both editors will follow it so discussion of penalties would be moot. Nobody Ent 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, didn't look that closely -- (probably fixes the copyvio problem!). Let's trim the tail as CI suggests and the opening phrase isn't essential, and any mention should be prohibited, which gets us:

"The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom."

That work? Nobody Ent 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to "If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban". Leave no wiggle room whatsoever Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom."

Corrected for clarity as suggested. Nobody Ent 19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to DC's not wishing to accept these terms and other editors editing my posts in violation of WP:TPG, I'm withdrawing from this discussion. Nobody Ent 02:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You all are making this too difficult. Just word it this way for both users and everything should be fine: "Until further notice, [user A] is restricted from commenting on, about, or to [user B] anywhere on Wikipedia." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has accepted those terms with that minor modification mostly because it makes sense that chasing him or Prioryman all over the various projects would be a hassle, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't know how it is a significant difference unless they edit a lot on the other projects, and if so, we can specify the project they edit on. I think if Prioryman agrees, we're done. Not sure what the big deal is. -- Avanu (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only other possible point of intersection between DC and I is the Commons, where we're both active; but we've never crossed paths and there's never been any conflict between us there. I'm sure that if some issue or pretext does emerge the admins on the Commons can deal with it and be informed by the steps that have been taken here. The terms of the restrictions posted on my talk page seemed to be changing every 5 minutes at one point but now that they seem to have settled down, I'm happy to accept them as-is. Hopefully this time the restrictions will stick and there will be no more of this nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

With that said, both Prioryman and Delicious Carbuncle have agreed to the same set of text.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle&oldid=491052572#Ban_wording

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prioryman&oldid=491098774#Ban_wording

I hope the community can agree with their agreement and put this issue to bed now. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

All you really need is for both of them to agree that the voluntary IBAN can be enforced as if the community had put it in place. That should do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

More disruption involving MMA

User:Agent00f

Firstly Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability having derailed the last attempt to reach a proposal for an RfC by filibustering in the process driving off one editor he is now using it as his own persoal soap box and forum. See this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For some background, this is a topic which has seen failure after failure in all previous attempts to be resolved for many months. The blindingly obvious common denominator in every single case are 3 editors: Mtking, TreyGeek, and Hasteur. Together they collude and dominate the discussion to the exclusion of actual contributors/users of the pages in question, then intimidate anyone who dares oppose or even question their methodology. This bred the animosity and untenable situation we find ourselves today: even though there are tens of thousands of users, hundreds of page contributors (dozens of which are were active in the discussion before), and many if not most have left in sheer disgust. None outside of their in-group have any trust or faith in them, and their string of failures are a stain on wikipedia's image. Simply observe Mtking's behavior below toward yet another user they've managed to provoke.

As to the issue at hand, I am not at all blocking their effort to repeat history, but instead only wish to introduce an alternative approach which is open to other participants. They can certainly choose not to participate, and we can move this new effort to another page if need be (several options exist). They of course see this as a threat to their dominion and engage in an active campaign to stop anyone who challenge their monopoly on power. If I just move the call for participation elsewhere, they'll simply retaliate elsewhere, so there's no safe harbor where another approach can at least be attempted. I strongly believe an effort which is not their direct control has at least a moderate chance of success, and the powers at be should consider all the other page contributors' wishes to resolve the matter when all previous attempt with our common denominators have failed miserably. Agent00f (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I request that you strike your assertion regarding the collusion and assertion regarding the common denominator. That is an assumption of bad faith on the behalf of editors in good standing with wikipedia whom have been attempting to apply the policy and standards as they exisist today. Long blocks of soapboxing and proposals which are directly contrary to the established policies are not collaberative, but disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to strike assertions that are objectively true and supported by empirical evidence. As just one example, in the last failed AN[I] attempt against me, after a round of intimidation Hasteur contacted the select group to provide (obviously biased) supporting statements. Not a single other participant on the talk page was contacted despite his claim of "neutrality". This is recorded in wiki for posterity. Singling out those who are not as well coordinated as them seems to be their modus operandi, as is clearly evident right here.

Also note that Hasteur continues to slam others for "assuming bad faith", when no assumption is necessary given copious empirical evidence. As further evidence of the tight knit nature of this clique, observe that TreyGeek immediately re-reverted when I tried to put back the comments that Mtking blatantly erased from the talk page. This is a consistent and repeated rule rather than the exception. Hasteur doesn't deny that my asserts are true, only feigning righteous indignation and wishing to strike them from the record regardless (and this is far from the first time). Again consistent with the assertion that they expect a monopoly on power. Agent00f (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now gone over the WP:3RR line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, I have filed a report at WP:3RR/N.Mtking ^(edits) 07:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. This action in itself is forum-shopping FORUMSHOP, while a link was provide, they're clearly the same issue and no link was provide back here even though it was created later. Notable given edit warring is more straightforward offense (quick block action).

As more evidence of the persistent lack of ethics noted on this page, Mtking's now trying to cover his/her deletion tactics by posting a specious AN, then offering to withdraw it only if they agree to the wholesale deletion.

User:Mtking and User:Hasteur

Many obvious violations by Mtking:

• The "edit war" AN just above was a consequence of blatant whole revertion/deletion (including unrelated comments) in violation of WP:TALKO editing rules. By sharing 3 reverts between 2 editors who work closely together (simply look at history for evidence), they can successfully flaunted 3RR, leaving the status of any new material in doubt and successful blocking contributions of any one person they choose. General intimidation.

• The collusion between Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion constitutes blatant BITE on all their parts. Using intimidation strategies in turn against people less versed in the long list of rules. This has apparently gone on for months.

• Just one specific case out of many by Hasteur is these "final warning" threats. Clear case of WP:Harassment. When they're brought to attention of broader community, he/she further ratchets up the threat level to force others to immediately apologize "or else". This is recorded at the MMA talk page. This resulted in WP:CANVASING, a very embarrassing ANI on their part, but this obviously continues unabated.

• Flooding of my user talk page by the lot above + Newmanoconnor (who just joined their gang a week ago), another case of #User_space_harassment. They never reply with any specifics when asked for evidence of violation. Seems the strategy is to flood for stuff they can't get away with at AN, and forums shop on anything borderline.

• Blatant ADMINSHOP given that multiple admins have already been involved in this general situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant WP:CANVASSING by User:Hasteur) and the common denominator for months in all these problems remains Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek.

• This whole AN is done in bad faith, no assumption necessary. The talk page in question has long devolved into the state it's in, and my edit was only to get normative processes back into order by analyzing previous failures and trying to avoid them in the future. Even the former admin was soapboxing. Nothing but desperate last ditch attempt at ADMINSHOP.
• One of the comments on the page above was "closed" completely at odds with closure rules, pretending to be the admin of the place despite having no authoritative power.

• In another blatant violation of ADMIN SHOPPING elsewhere, all 3 have conducted multiple aggressive campaigns of AfD's on entire sets of MMA pages even during collaboration with page's contributors, often voting in concord between themselves. Simply look at their histories, it's nothing but trying to trash MMA related pages and hunt down MMA contributors. They're not always successful, but doesn't stop the "try try again" approach. Even minor successes can break a set of page's cohesion, which is why they keep trying instead of waiting for any kind of resolution. This kind of SHOPPING is clearly an asymmetric "terrorism" against a whole wiki community since it costs them nothing while hugely disrupting others.

Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f named me in this subsection and did not notify me. Again, we have the same demonstration of lack of good faith. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur is already subscribed to this, aka already knows this AN exists. Note timestamp on his/her direct reply to me above. BTW, I'm also not going to spam TreyGeek's talk since he also knows this exist. Personally I think spamming someone's page with AN notices when they already know is close to User space harassment. Agent00f (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Portillo

Secondly Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to attack other editors, see this, this and this. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is simply more WP:Harassment by MtKing. Targets pages someone's involved with for deletion (since no sanctions for excessive AfDs, even failed ones), and when they lash back, tries to drive them out. Just look at Mtking's history, it's purely destructive, and it's daily routine. Agent00f (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors has been incredibly disruptive and confusing. Interesting how UFC articles were doing perfectly fine for years, enjoyed by thousands of visitors. Until someone suddenly noticed that UFC events are against Wikipedia policy. Took a while to figure that out. Portillo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is not now, nor has ever been, a defense to violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines consisting of "It's been up for years and no one noticed before now that they were in violation." Quite aside from that standards change, and that handwaving was done in the cowboy days that don't pass muster now, there is no statute of limitations here.

  That being said, those links were unacceptable personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, pure and simple, and it is curious that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have might not understand that. Strange though it might appear to some that an editor could think so without some unwholesome bias, it is quite possible to believe that a particular type of article fails to pass notability muster (and, indeed, continue to hold it) without having a "personal agenda" or being on a "witch hunt." Ravenswing 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the perfectly coherent defense is the 5th and last pillar of wiki: it is not a bureaucracy. This means that while following rules are convenient for daily operations, rules are not the defining characteristic. The MMA event articles are not some flash by night operation. They've used and appreciated by countless users. They also exist as a coherent and cohesive where it's worth as a whole is significantly diminished with deletion of each election. Without a consistent solution in hand, it's simply reckless (not bold) to allow individual hit-and-run AfDs to ruin a useful resource. Help the topic's long term contributors make it right, instead of capitulating to destructive editor with no stake in the outcome. I hope that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have could understand this. Agent00f (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Funny that, but a consistent solution is at hand: the omnibus yearly articles. (It's not that employing them is an "inconsistent" solution, of course; it's that you don't like them.) That being said, I note that you are perfectly willing to cite rules and policies when they suit your purpose to do so, and this strikes me as another area where you argue policy when you believe it favors your stance, and that policy should be ignored when you believe it doesn't. Moreover, what I note you do not attempt to rebut are your unacceptable personal attacks ... unless you believe that falls under IAR as well.

  That being said, there's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based boards which applies: "It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that I don't agree with your position." Ravenswing 02:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I understand where Portillo is coming from as yes a handful of accounts are clearly spamming Afd with anti-MMA nonsense; however, I encourage him/her to change the obviously sarcastic "delete" comments in the various AfDs to straightforward keeps so as not confuse any closing admin who might think they were serious arguments for deletion. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Prayer for relief

As an editor who has been around and around the bush with the various SPAs that show up, disrupt all forward momentum on developing a workable solution to the MMA article space and then vanish in the night to leave the crew of regulars to do their best to demonstrate good faith by addressing the points raised by the SPAs, I with to enter a plea for relief. I request an uninvolved administrator (or multiple administrators) to start calling out (and sanctioning) the violations of community policy on all participants in the debate (yes, I open myself up to the calling out). The only way forward is to demonstrate to the externally canvassed (as has been demonstrated multiple times) editors that violations of community policy and standards will no longer be tolerated in the space. Hasteur (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The regulars who don't support this small clique's monopoly over the agenda have long left in disgust. Admin involvement to sanction any remaining dissent from their agenda will only further antagonize a poisonous situation. In the broader picture, it's the MMA page contributors who have to live with the consequences of the group's polarizing choices. They have little interest in the actual subject as evidenced by their terrible design for "omnibus pages" (which they stealth-implemented to the protestations of everyone else), and this means the rest of us will be saddled with the a burden they have no real stake in. This is not only demotivating to the masses but breeds contempt and grounds for future conflict, which is exactly we are trying to avoid. My alternative proposal is simply that those from the sporting community get a chance to create a plan consistent with both wiki rules and also the stakeholders in this case. We can do this among ourselves without issue if only those who consider themselves an executive elite stop actively sabotaging any efforts they can't directly control and manipulate. For a renewed effort to settle this matter, I've spend considerable time developing a process which would prevent take-overs by single parties in decision-making in the hopes that everyone gets a voice. This is a obviously a threat to them, and why they're trying to block me in a panic.

As to the technical specifics of the matter, most of us want brightline tests for MMA notability, and some level of protection for coherent sets of well formatted/presented and cleanly linked event pages as long as they can fit a minimal template standard. The first issue is obvious. A brightline test would provide clear precedence of what's acceptable. Recall this is the same group that's been actively AfD'ing subject pages at random, even during the "collaborative" process demonstrating bad faith, to gain leverage. A consistent test would sap the power of this tool in the future, so it's against their interests and not an option they'd consider at all. On the second issue, the MMA wiki community has for years used a consistent and well-established format to chain together cohesive sets of events whose value in sum are greater than their parts. Breaking these chains inflict damage well beyond the individual entries and thus why they're the choice of target for this AfD group to gain leverage. We're complete open to more stringent requirements (ie template) to establish brightline tests, but not unexpectedly this minority also won't table this.

What's been even more frustrating is that these features were presented as appendages to the clique's existing plan (in something of 80-20 split in their favor), and they willfull ignored any mention it. Such is the nature of their attitude of complete domination. Rather than let anyone else present their ideas, this small group has intentionally driven off collaborators. No matter how you look at it, the common denominator of the string of previous failures is still them. Agent00f (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, can you link the specific edit where you made a proposal for possible guidelines on the notability of MMA events? I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I've seen walls of text, much like this one, that don't seem to go anywhere, in my opinion. It is difficult to comment or discuss a proposal that I haven't seen clearly. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply search for "I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth" on the omnibus page. Note that it's bulleted to be easy to see and read. It was of course ignored by the clique.

More importantly, I believe the approach that you and Mtking took when writing your proposal is already poisoned. The broader community was never consulted, so they have zero incentive to buy in except to capitulate to the constant intimidation and harassment. This is why I proposed a new start with the MMA base onboard from the start. The can choose your plan, or they can choose something else, but they're not forced either way, esp by admin pressure. If it needs to be revised to meet wiki boundaries, so be it, that's their responsibility. It's not your right to take that away from everyone else.

I've started writing this when Mtking immediately saw it as a threat and started this AN. My first post in a line to be posted over time was wholesale deleted. You know what got deleted given you were part of the 3RR. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped you would provide an actual link so we could be sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am going to assume you are referring to this edit. If this assumption is correct, the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't understand it. I cannot tell what you want WP:MMAEVENT to read or how it is related to existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if at all. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it? Users want something with a given structure. The rules should be written to accommodate this, not the other way around. Maybe it's due to your background, but these are not physically or mathematically defined impermeable constructs to assemble towards an end. They're guidelines which can be simply created out of thin air as long as they're reasonably consistent to the general spirit of wiki. If you don't feel MMAEVENT can be stretched to accomodate, then it doesn't even need to enter into this. Agent00f (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seem like blatant ADMIN SHOPPING, esp when factoring in "multiple administrators". Multiple admins have already been involved in this situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant CANVASING by Hasteur) and common denominator in all these problems remains the 3 named above. Also, calling out "SPA's" with every breath, who are often the only people left to oppose them, is directly in violation of BITING. Rotating between them to throw the rulebook at newbies to intimidate them also seems like BITEing. Agent00f (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE says that if you see a SPA acting like a SPA you should call them a SPA. Tagging them as SPAs only allows other editors who aren't as quick on the uptake to see if the actions do warrant further response. Please strike your assertions of canvassing. No action was taken during the last ANI where you believe I canvassed therefore you should WP:DROP the claim. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:BITEing with rulebook. Below are the CANVASING links. These are the only people to comment against me on the ANI directly after. These are the named people (Newmanoconnor is newest member and thus not part of the "common denominator", but he's already been WP:Harrassing me in turn with Hasteur right I joined), plus the admin who strongly endorses MtKing + TreyGeek plan (his own words). They are a solid votingblock. The ANI didn't go anywhere, esp after posting these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mtking#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newmanoconnor#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreyGeek#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#FYI:_Agent00f

I have no intention of retracting a 100% factual statement. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "SPA"s, one quick look through all these user's histories clearly indicate that all 3 of them basically try to delete or otherwise disrupt MMA articles for a living. Includes many trips to AN's and votingblock at AfD's. Fortunately there's no wiki rule WP:HYPOCRISY or we wouldn't all be entertained by this ridiculous forum shopping right now. Agent00f (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I again ask you to strike the above mentioned assertion. I am not a Single Purpose account. I do not edit exclusively MMA based topics. My edit history very clearly shows a focus on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) based articles, but no singular purpose in any editing. You on the other hand have exclusively edited the talk page for WP:MMANOT, your talk page, and this noticeboard. Your actions are a textbook definition of a single purpose account. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of the last 500 edits, the vast majority involves destructive tendencies against MMA material/users. Also, you don't "edit exclusively MMA based topics" since you don't edit anything in them at all. Agent00f (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f - statements that people are trying to delete articles "for a living" (implying paid editing) or calling edits "terrorism" are very serious personal attacks and if continued would warrant admin action under WP:NPA. They do not help to reach resolutions of the dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"for a living" is a figure of speech. If you look through history, the vast majority of their actions are destruction against MMA material. Asymmetric "terrorism" is much more literal. The idea of terrorism is low-cost strikes (which AfD's are, they cost nothing) against higher value targets (which articles in a coherent set are, take out one and the sum suffers). It is also a tool of threat/fear. Note that these AfD's are being fired even during the "consensus" process, implying that they will stop so long as we agree to their plan. This is not unlike bringing guns to arms reduction talks and randomly shooting at people until the other side capitulates. It doesn't always have to hit, but occasionally hitting helps. We literally have no recourse against this other than capitulating. The clique has no material to AfD, so it is by definition asymmetric. These are direct factual statements and abstract reasoning and thus need no retraction. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Facts of the case

In good faith I'll have to hold off on posting any "soapboxing" on the MMA talk page until this is resolved. So instead of working further on rules for proposals and proposals, I'll write some background to the case, valuable to any decision. Good decisions are based on factual knowledge.

These are mostly for any intervening admin (which I think should intervene). They are empirical observations, assuming good faith in all cases (and no value judgments to minimize bias). They are my direct experience after 1 week (and reading the history):

1. The current MMA omnibus "design" is the product of Mtking and Treygeek. An admin verified this. Mtking knows nothing about the subject, and Treygeek claims to but he's never really demonstrated it anywhere other than improving an event page with some generic prose. He also claimed this took him a significant investment over a whole week, so I guess he works slow.

2. The design they've come up with is both visual atrocious (mismatched sidebars, etc) and obscenely long (already hard to navigate even though only 1/2 complete). Not to mention completely irrational for a non-seasonal sport (which is not sorted by calendar year), and potentially inconsistent in presentation between different organization. This can only be because someone's incompetent or willfully incompetent. We are told to assume good faith, so logically that leaves the former, and it would make sense given 1. Regardless, this doesn't bode well for MMA on wiki in the long term. Because this was already stealth-implemented for one sporting org (the biggest), it's now inconsistent with everything else. This means the work falls on "the regulars" to do the rest of work implementing something they strongly dislike (a fact noted again and again). Rule-enforcing bad design on a volunteer community drives away both contributors and readers, ruins morale, and lowers the quality of everything. This is simply a fact of human nature.

3. Furthermore, despite the process going on for months, it's still incomplete and not ready for RfC. This work is something a competent person can figure out in a weekend, maybe two if they didn't have much wiki domain knowledge. Their excuse is that MMA fans have been obstructing them, but that makes no sense since work done in your own time can be completed regardless of what others do. Their plan eventually came to incorporate some suggested improvements from others, but still none of those contributors are supporting it now.

4. The editing histories of these two + Hasteur (which constitutes their votingblock on anything mma related) shows that they're all ardent deletionists. The histories for Mtking and Hasteur for many months is almost exclusively hunting down mma pages to AfD, plus the ensuing drama. This doesn't suggest they enjoy the sport to say the least. On the other, the Agent00f is clearly thus far mostly an SPA except some kinect material previously. The follow is not citable given privacy concerns so it's "trust me", but it's factually basic: I'm a sometimes MMA fan, and joined the fray because I saw some weirdness in the pages, and found what was going on. It seemed fundamentally unethical at the time so I wrote my two cents, but got trolled in by the clear BS and "warnings" I got in reply. I also know I'm somewhat motivated by anger that gradually built over the week over this as these facts surfaced. Now I would feel I would betray my own sense of ethics if I let this lie. This is simply what happened based on my own recollection of feelings.

5. Let's be honest, we all know that Wiki's rules can be game-theoried by a clique over less organized individuals. From votingblocks to avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, or round-robin around 3RR (noted in section above), there are many moral hazards here that can encourage a small cohesive group to work together against singular targets. Their histories suggest they stick together on the topic, and never go against anyone in the group. I suppose assuming good faith that can be attributed to sheer coincidence. However game theory is math, and not an assumption.

6. One of Hasteur and Mtking's most notable attributes is unsubstantial replies. If you look at their histories, they rarely post more than a couple lines, often littered with WP: tags instead of actual english. I've found better contributors think moderately deep thoughts, that's just a fact. This is strange given that one of their favorite excuses for deletionism is unsubstantial content, or no prose. This is at least hypocritical as a matter of pure logic. Note this does not apply to Treygeek.

7. Speaking of excuses for AfD, another is lack of sources. But that's also ironic because these two often make frivolous accusations which they don't substantiate, which leads to:

8. Another attributes of all 3 is selective replies. There's apparently no Wiki rule for ignoring people, so they usually just ignore any comment or reply where there's no trite WP tag to counterpoint. This tends to frustrate those who are the exact opposite in substantive replies, so when those call them out, they flaunt WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. This is very evident in the whole MMA omnibus thread and it's clearly gaming the system as matter of game theory.

9. To be fair, one of Agent00f's attributes is being too verbose, and centering everything on reasoning/logic instead of human feelings. Based on personal observation, it's a character flaw.

10. Mtking and Hasteur often accuse others first of things they're guilty themselves for. This can be seen by the harassment on my talk page and the AN itself. In the abstract this is a psychological strategy but let's assume good faith so they just do it by accident. The effect it has is still real, though, like this AN. Point 8 above is a good example, too. They're simply very proactive about striking out first at everyone else as an empirical observation.

Agent00f (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact - most of the above "facts" are purely opinion. But hey, why cloud the issue with actual facts supported by evidence? Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not they clearly are not. An "observation" is just that: something you see clearly, like a bottle on table. A bottle on a table is not a matter of opinion. If you need something cited, please point to it specifically and I will oblige. But as a matter of basic fairness you also must oblige to acknowledge in reply that it's observable fact. I didn't cite everything as a time consideration, because the MMA talk page is a mess of a revision history. Please do not think I don't have a very technical background where discerning the difference is critical. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet clearly, they are just your opinion about the matter. BTW - I totally love how you denigrate editors by labeling them. Hmm, how about calling you and those who support you rapid MMA fanboys? So we can have the AFD deletionists vs the fanboys. Hmm, suddenly labels aren't that attractive, are they? Ah, but you'll say, they are AFD deletionists! It's a fact (in my opinion...)! Ah, but others can point out, you are just an MMA fanboy! It's a fact (in their opinion)! And all of the vitriol, hostility and gamemanship you show on the MMA talk page does nothing to help the matter. Except, of course, chase several admins away that were trying to help. What's odd is you've not made a single edit to an MMA article. You do realize that the ultimate way to pull something out of the omnibus is to put the details that would show to anyone that it deserves it's own article. Good grief - UFC 145 probably could be split off without too much work, but that isn't being done. Think about it ... Ravensfire (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not bother if someone calls another a rabid MMA fanboy if they provide a proper definition, just like a bottle on a table is predicated on a definition of "on". Both are observable. Please provide a definition for you statement I'll be happy to accept the label since it changes nothing but the letters. Observable facts are largely linguistically context-free.
2. Also, the admin left of his own free volition. This is a fact as evidenced by his own statement.
3. Since you seem to expect substance from me, it's only fair you provide similar substance in reply. Please substantiate your claims clear as I've done mine.
4. Later I'm working on a set of interpretations based on external reasoning (ie knowledge from outside instead of simple observations) from these facts. This should make the difference abundantly clear. Note in the vernacular, "opinions" is not well defined, so please be much more specific so that we're on the same page.
5. Finally, a slight correction: these are not just facts, but also math as explained within the writing. For example, hypocrisy as formally defined is axiomatic, and easy to deduct. If you have disputes with any of the math, please point out which and we can either go through a thought experiment or the formally deduction. Agent00f (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For #1, can you link to an edit where I claimed to spend a week "full-time" working on UFC 140? If I did make such a claim it was in error, however, I doubt I said that. I spent a week researching the event so that I could write the prose and have it sourced as well as I could. If that is bad, I apologize, I was doing the best I could with the time I had available to me. I would love to see you bring an MMA event article up to the same standards or to a higher standard.

• I believe you claimed that you did this during an no-work week, and you wouldn't be able to resume this kind of commitment afterward, which would imply it was a sizable investment. I commend your commitment. Since we seem to more or less agree on the basics, I'll just reword it. If you wish to specify X hours out of 40 let me know, but I don't think that's necessary.

For #2, the original version of the article lacked the sidebars and raw event results. These other features were added afterwards in order to attempt to work with others interested in the MMA article space. For you to blame the current format of the article exclusively on me and/or Mtking is misplaced blame.

• This plan was specified by Dennis the admin as the result of you and Mtking's work. However, given that none of the those others you speak of want anything to do with it anymore, I think calling it you and Mtking's plan is fairly accurate. I will however amend 3 because not all elements of the design are yours.

For #3... you may not have intended it to be. However, it appears to be a personal attack against any and everyone who has participated in the discussions at WT:MMANOT because you are claiming we are incompetent since the discussion has lasted as long as it has.... thanks.

• This is a bad interpretation of a plain fact. The incompetence is displayed in a plan that no one liked. Had competent work been done in the first place, then the process wouldn't have taken months because people wouldn't have objected so severely. However I sympathize with your distaste for bureaucracy. I'm wasting time here much better spent coming up with proposals a superior plan which everyone except you 3 would like. In fact you and Mtking gaming of the system (wholesale deletion and then 3rr, remember that?) is blocking proposals from being tabled. Bureaucracy often means incompetence blocking ideas that aren't institutional. Such is life.

For #7 "they often make frivolous accusations"[citation needed] (particularly for the "frivolous accusations" I have made).

• It probably wasn't unambiguous that 7 follows from 6, where you are not named. I've clarified it. I hope this doesn't imply that you've internalized the clique. ;) If you want citations for them, simply read the flood of their spam/harassment on my talk page. There is of course much more in the talk page (WP:WARNINGS at every turn), and you should be aware of it from your history on this case.

For #8 I historically don't respond to comments, questions, etc that I do not understand. Also, I try not to immediately respond to talk pages (though I am not always successful) and in discussion that have rapid comments from multiple people it can be easy to miss something to respond to.

• I don't know what you're talking about, please clarify. This is one example of a good reply to a confusing comment instead of ignoring it.

For #10 I stand by the vast majority of my edits and actions on Wikipedia. If administrators and/or the larger Wikipedia community feels that I have been in error I fully expect them to let me know up to and including talk page warnings, blocks of editing privileges and/or topic bans.

• I apologize I didn't exclude you from this point, that was clearly an error and I've fixed it. You're actually a quite honest person and don't indulge in this like your colleagues.

For the points that I did not address, I don't understand why you bring them up aside from possibly blowing off steam. I had hoped that both in the original WT:MMANOT discussions and my attempts to renew the discussion that everyone could try to work together. Unfortunately, it seems those efforts are failing and I'm not sure why aside from the possibility that my involvement inherently negatively polarizes the situation. Now I must run, UFC on Fox is about to start. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The facts listed here are a large part of the reason why people are very reluctant to work with the 3 amigos, and frankly despise them even if they're not allowed to express it. I've noted above that background facts are important to making decision, like for example this AN. That's why they're placed as a primer for the admin who might not be familiar with the situation otherwise.

Replied Agent00f (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Situation

This is based on my own value judgement and external logic (ie uses things not inherent in the observation). It's separated from the above because it is not 100% provably true.

1. It seems what happened is that when the group above was warring against mma pages, a few mma fans took matters into their own hands. This had a unfortunate polarizing effect on wiki administration whereby the latter became the "bad guys" as an aggregate, and the former by extension and axiomatic symmetry the good guys. This gave the former considerable more leeway when gaming the system. There is extensive psych research for this if citation is necessary.

2. Allowing a small disinterested clique to systematically ruin a whole functional community on wiki is a stain on the wiki reputation, even if it's by accident. By doing nothing to dissuade (ie allowing) gaming of the system, it paints a picture that the org is more about the letter of the law than the spirit. It defines the site as a bureaucratic nightmare instead of good judgement. This is fundamentally discouraging to smart and creative contributors which is what any site needs.

3. As a matter of good judgement, there are two issues to consider here: the good of the few against the many, and legal consistency. The former is obvious, but the later often encourages enforcing the letter of the law if only to minimize exceptions. However, in that case we also have to consider that allowing the precedent that a few people can game the site rules for months without punishment.

4. This seems a clear case where a few (again, perhaps only by circumstance) took over the reigns of power by abusing the common rules. In a way it's the wort kind of takeover since they've gotten to make substantial decisions even though they have no stake in the longer term outcome. This is very akin to predatory takeover or private equity business in equivalent function, which are very well documented cases. In all these circumstances, demoralization at the lower ranks and moral hazards abound. Given this has already happened, the question is how to resolve it: silence the whistle-blowers, turn a blind eye, solve the problem by closing loopholes, or solve the problem by sanctioning people've taken advantage of them (even if they only happen upon it). The decision is an easy one to make, and it's certainly not mine to make, but the necessary info to do it was presented.

Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Call for sanctions

Administrators Surely this 3 ring circus has gone on long enough. The thread a few days ago coupled with these 2 threads should illuminate beyond any shadow of a doubt the disruptive actions of Agent00f who will filibuster, claim bureaucratic abuse, claim anything in the book just to slow down the process of building consensus regarding the MMA articles.

I do acknowledge that my own actions in response to Agent00f have been less than exemplary, however I challenge you to find any other editor who has dealt with the same intensity and duration of abuse of community guidelines as we (MtKing, TreyGeek, and myself) have and still maintain the same level of composure.

I call for an indefinite block on Agent00f on grounds of deliberate disruption, lack of Assuming Good Faith, Personal Attacks, and deliberate obfuscation after being warned repeatedly being asked to strike assumptions of bad faith and to discontinue their disruptive behavior.

My name is Hasteur and I endorse this set of proposed sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so much admin shopping just like the last ANI it's not even funny. First, thorough explanations are not "Obfuscation". Some things in the world are just complicated. Second, sometimes facts can reflect badly, but that's no a function of facts, but interpretation. Just like a bottle on the table that you were supposed to put away can reflect badly on one's sense of responsibility. I suppose it's possible of all who sees this one will oblige and you'll get your way in complete violation of the shopping rule. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The user in question has a perfectly clean block log. Calling for an indefinite block at this point is inappropriate and easily seen as pointy. Please follow proper procedures and an escalating block system. Calling for this right away seems like an attempt to remove an opponent in a dispute, even if that isn't what it is meant as. Silverseren^C 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have striked my request for an indef block, however I point to the below created section, their blocking by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and their WP:NOTTHEM groundwork laying on their talk page in response to their block. While I prefer to see the good things in editors, I suspect that no change in behavior will result from the preventative measure that was taken. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reflections on the Ridiculousness of this AN

1. It was clearly created in ridiculously bad faith. Mtking wholesale deletes a new comment, which is a direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule and then has the nerve to FORUMSHOP and ADMINSHOP by creating this AN over his own violation.
2. When I tried to revert back this blatant disregard for wiki rules, Mtking and Treygeek team up to run around 3RR together, and Mtking creates yet another AN to FORUMSHOP/ADMINSHOP against me so that his blatant disregard for policy can't stopped.
3. When that didn't get anywhere, Mtking instead attempts subterfuge to make sure the comment is never seen.

This AN is basically an attempt to hid one comment by either keeping it deleted or blocking the user who created it. It's nothing bad faith to the Nth degree.

Frankly Mtking's actions here an insult to the intelligence of admins by assuming they're can't see through these flagrant attempts at flaunting wiki standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

wholesale deletions on Wine

There have been two deletions lately of the same content but for different reasons. Portions of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph were first deleted by User:Haldraper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because they were "undue bits" Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views). These "undue bits" were content relevant to wine, wine regulation, and different types of wine. I reverted the deletions. The exact same content was then deleted by User:Wran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because of a "contradicted cited source" Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views). As there are four citations, it was unclear which was contradictory. Looking at the first page of Encyclopedia Britannica's Wine and its subsection Fruit wines, this source is not contradicted. Barley wine discusses barley wine, but it does not include information about ginger or rice wine. As such additional citations would be needed to cover the rest of the information. I was unable to verify the content of The Simon & Schuster Pocket Wine Label Decoder and Vintage: The Story of Wine. Simon & Schuster. I asked for clarification on the talk page. Another editor offered to check the references. Rather than engage in discussion, Wran reverted my edit—Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)—thus deleting the content again, leaving the edit notes, "don't undo CORRECTION because you can't understand it!" [sic].

As Wran has been cited for edit warring this article within the last few months, and rather than engage in an edit war myself, I felt it best to raise the issue of wholesale deletions, nebulous justifications for deletions, nonconstructive comments, and refusal to use the venue for discussing article edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloshave (talk • contribs)

• As to Haldraper, I don't see any issue. They have only edited Wine once that I see, and they sometimes edit other wine related articles. They didn't do anything except boldly make an edit, and you reverted and have been talking about the general deletions on the talk page, which is the normal process of WP:BRD. No reason to have even mentioned him here at ANI.

• I notice Wran will scold others for not discussing[89], but has never once used the Wine talk page themselves. They have been blocked before for warring [90] and I noticed their edit summaries are often pointy and combative as well. I'm not sure if the summaries are just due to a cultural difference or what, but they aren't actionable at this stage. Really, this is more of a content dispute that should be handled via WP:DRN if he won't go the talk page, and if he violates 3RR or you think the totality of his edits are warring, then go to WP:3RRN. The article is only getting a few edits a day at most, so I'm thinking ANI isn't the solution here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Haldraper only because Wran gave a different reason for deleting the same content. While it may have been meant as a clarification, it was equally lacking in clarity. My concern was coordination between the two, though I wouldn't go so far as to say sock puppetry. I guess I should have raised this issue at WP:DRN, but I had only found this board and didn't realize it pertains to incidents in the stronger sense of the word. Another editor, BarrelProof, has reverted Wran's deletions. I'll wait to see if Wran reverts BarrelProof's revision before posting the issue on DRN or 3RRN. Encycloshave (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sockpuppets are usually new accounts that make multiple edits of the same type. If you look at Haldraper's contribs, you find he has been here since February 2009 and edits a wide variety of articles, including some wine related. User:BarrelProof has been around well over a year and edits a variety, including many alcohol related topics. You have be careful and check the histories of users before even considering socking as an issue. These editors are clearly not, they just show an interest in articles about alcohol, and likely have it on their watchlist, a perfectly normal thing. I think DRN is your better bet, as this isn't close enough to warring to warrant a go at 3RRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have checked the histories, hence I wrote that I wouldn't go so far as to call it sock puppetry. Though the changing reasoning for the exact same deletions was concerning. As for BarrelProof, who reverted Wran's, it was not my intention to raise any concern at all. I apologize if I implied otherwise. Encycloshave (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have left a couple of messages on the talk page for Wine informing them that they need to discuss rather than constantly revert back, and was greeted with less than a warm welcome. We will see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Wran is now blocked for 1 week for edit warring and personal attacks. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla, source falsification and tendentious editing

I have to report a case of longterm tendentious editing and source falsification by JCAla (talk · contribs), who just broke 3RR re-inserting the following edit [91] (previous reverts of other edits: [92], [93], [94]) I'm not bringing this to WP:AN3 because the 3RR violation is only a surface sign indicative of his overall aggressive attitude. The source falsification is a lot more serious, and requires more long-term measures.

documentation of falsifying source use

For background: JCAla is an agenda editor whose main goal is the glorification of one of Afghanistan's civil war leaders, Ahmed Shah Massoud. The source in question here, the report "Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001" by the Afghanistan Justice Project ([95]), is a decent source on various atrocities committed in Afghanistan during the civil war period. I'm not aware that anybody has challenged it as an overall reliable source. JCAla has cited from it repeatedly in multiple articles. This report contains accounts atrocities committed on all sides of the conflict, and provides tentative assessments of the extent to which various leaders were personally responsible for them. Among other things, it describes the shelling and bombardment of Kabul by several parties as a war crime (p. 64f. "[a]ll of the major armed factions who were contending for control of the city were responsible for the indiscriminate use of a full range of heavy weapons"), and it investigates the responsibilities for these shellings in terms of the chains of command within each of the major factions. In this context, the report clearly implicates Massoud, then the leader of the Afghan government forces, as one of the main actors responsible (p.65: "Massoud is named repeatedly as directing operations"; p.68: "Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids"; p. 77: "The command centers of Jamiat / Shura-i Nazar forces [i.e. Massoud's] were within sight of Afshar, the intent of the attack appeared to be to drive out the civilian population from Afshar"; p. 79: "Shura-i Nazar forces bombarded Kart-iNau, Shah Shaheed and Chilsatoon with a heavy aerial bombardment and from the ground. As a result of this counter-attack more than 100 people were killed and on 120 wounded, most of them civilians."). The report also deals with a massacre and mass rape in a place called Afshar, committed by Massoud's forces. (pp.82ff.) Here too, responsibility is clearly being attributed to Massoud personally. (p.82: "as fighting took place in an area barely two kilometers from the general command post, and field commanders were equipped with radio communications, the general commander must have known of the abuses taking place in Afshar as soon as they started. Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway"), although it admits that (not unexpectedly) "it has not been possible to identify individual commanders responsible for specific instances of execution or rape". The report later talks about one individual victim of abuse by Massoud's forces, and sums up that (p.112) "[a]s in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered the abuses. However, they failed to take action against the commander and forces responsible, and instead attempted to cover up the crime." Of all these accounts, JCAla has seen fit to quote only one single sentence from this report, namely the one in the paragraph just above: "[T]here is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered abuses" (note the telltale falsifying change of "the abuses" to simply "abuses"). This quotation is presented as if it applied to all actions of Massoud's party during the war, rather than just to the individual fate of one rape victim. The falsified quotation is then presented by JCAla as supporting the claim that "Ahmad Shah Massoud did not order any crimes." As for the charge of indiscriminate shelling, JCAla has used the same report to support the statement that "Bombardment of the capital came to a halt" (as a result of Massoud's actions), but has completely left out any reference to Massoud's own participation in such bombardments.

I believe this is a very serious case of not merely source-cherrypicking, but downright source falsification. This is in the context of a very obvious, longterm tendentious editing agenda, which is easily visible in the present state of the Ahmed Shah Massoud article, largely the result of JCAla's work.

We have just been topic-banning Anupam (talk · contribs) for a very much less obvious case of longterm agenda editing. If we are to apply the same standards here, then a ban is unavoidable. JCAla has five separate prior blocks for disruptive editing between September 2010 and January 2012 [96].

Disclosure: I became aware of JCAla in the course of a recent dispute over the use of a non-free image, and only began to look into his editing during and after this dispute. If it hadn't been for my involvement in that, I would have simply indef-blocked JCAla myself, but now of course I can't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to need some time to look into Fut.Perf.'s claims and the sources to address the points one by one. I just want to recommend anyone looking into this to read the context of this mal-intentioned report first.

Fut.Perf. seems to be intent to ban me for he failed to get an image deleted he bitterly tried to get deleted. It went so far that even other administrators noticed Fut.Perf. bitter tone, stating "your nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader [JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate."[97] You can see that Fut.Perf. went to Magog the Ogre's talk page[98], someone many people know I had a dispute with, clearly trying to get him to act against me because of our history. He could have asked any other administrator to look into this, but he asked Magog of whom he seems to think to know what he will do.

I want to point out that as far as I know Fut.Perf. never edited the Ahmad Shah Massoud article before he went bitter over the failed image deletion. When he came to that article, he put a NPOV tag without providing any reason on the talk, so I rv. Then he put a "dubious tag" behind a sentence, again with no reason on the talk, that is why I rv. Then he removed a direct quote, which I also rv. (I will self rv if asked to.) If he sincerely wanted to improve the article, he could have expanded the quote instead. He could also have started a discussion on the talk page. He failed to do any of that.

JCAla (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Next thing. Everything Fut.Perf. claims as alleged "evidence" for "source falsification and tendentious editing", relates ONLY to the Ahmad Shah Massoud#War in Kabul and other parts of the country 1992-1996 section of the Ahmad Shah Massoud article - nothing else. I invite anyone to read that whole section. If it has a weakness, than it is the following one, that it makes too extensive use of direct quotes from exclusively reliable sources. tbc JCAla (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion really belongs to the talk of that article not here as Fut.Perf clearly fails to point out any "evidence" for a supposed pattern of "source falsification and tendentious editing". Anyways, I see three main topics brought up by Fut.Perf., each relating only to one section of one article. For those topics Fut.Perf. uses exclusively ONE source to back up his claim. I have, however, combined the knowledge and information of many different reliable sources on these issues - which will paint a different picture than Fut.Perf. has tried to paint. The three issues seem to be 1) the shelling of Kabul, 2) the Afshar operation and 3) other. tbc JCAla (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not about "painting" this or that "picture", and it's not about what other sources say. It's about how you pretended to summarize this source. If you had simply omitted it, we'd have nothing to discuss now. But you brought it in, and you used it for supporting pretty much the opposite of what it actually says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently, Fut Perf has brought to ANI a questionable example of a dispute over a source with JCala and alleged tendentious editing without any evidence. I don't see why JCala would have any reason to be 'Banned' for merely allegedly misrepresenting a source. I'd like to personally see more tangible evidence of alleged 'tendentious' editing before any editing restrictions are handed out.Pectore^talk 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can let Roy Gutman from the United States Institute of Peace, and Director of the American University's Crimes of War Project as well as expert in the scientific research on war crimes do the representation of the sources on the issue for us - so neither Fut.Perf. nor me. Gutman won the Pulitzer prize in 1993 for his coverage of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where he provided the first documented reports of concentration camps. He is co-editor of the book, Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know and is author of A Witness to Genocide: The 1993 Pulitzer Prize Winning Dispatches on Ethnic Cleansing of Bosnia and Banana Diplomacy: The Making of American Policy in Nicaragua, 1981-1987. Gutman wrote in "How we missed the story" (p. 222) about Massoud (and I am giving the full quote here, so Fut.Perf. won't start his questionable accusations again):

The major criticism of Massoud's human rights record centers on the 1993 killing of Hazara civilians in the Afshar neighborhood of Kabul. This was Massoud's operation, while defense minister, to capture the military and political headquarters of the Shia Hezbi Wahdat in west Kabul after Wahdat leader Abdul Ali Mazari withdrew from the government and began secret talks with Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami. Massoud's Jamiat forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i-Islami sent in troops at five o'clock in the morning on February 11, 1993. Mazari and his commanders fled the University Social Science Institute, where they had their headquarters, by about one o'clock in the afternoon. Troops of both Jamiat and Ittihad undertook a search operation that investigators later described as "a mass exercise in abuse and looting." But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued. Was Massoud a "human rights abuser" with a"record of brutality?" In the seesaw fighting in northern Shamali in 1999, "there was a tendency in the heat of battle not to take prisoners," said Davis, who spent several months each year with Massoud's forces from 1981 to 2001. "But," he added, "atrocities in the real sense of that term I'm not aware of" There was "no pattern of repeated killings of enemy civilians or military prisoners" by Massoud's forces, according to Davis.

I guess that speaks for itself. JCAla (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We can also have a look at what two renowned journalists, authors and observers which were personally, physically present in Kabul and Afshar said.

John Jennings (Associated Press) in "Massoud" (published by Webster University Press):

"When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions [in Afshar] would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably those of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against Hazara captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more heavily populated areas, and killing many more noncombatants, on the other side of the town. Understandably, he chose the former. In the resulting Afshar operation abuses [by Massoud’s troops] were minimal, as I saw for myself …Of course that has never stopped political opportunists (often masquerading as human rights activists) from inventing a “massacre”, that never, in fact, occurred. During the battle, I watched Panjshiris rescue a wounded Hazara woman caught in a cross fire … Next day I stumbled across one of Wahdat’s impromptu jails in the basement of an abandoned house, complete with three non-Hazara corpses, tied up with baling wire, and shot as the gunmen fled. ... Any popular movement, if it is truly popular, is going to harbor a criminal element, just because any large population harbors a criminal element. It is unrealistic to expect zero crimes. Yet Afghans, even Massoud's enemies, know that abuses by his troops were rare and punished [if possible] as often as they were caught. ... His enemies on the other hand undertook mass murder, looting , and ethnic cleansing as a matter of policy. ... Had Massoud not fought to hold on to Kabul, the human rights situation in Afghanistan and throughout the region would have been vastly worse than it was."

Edward Girardet (Director Global Journalism Network) in "Massoud" (published by Webster University Press):

"I was in Kabul many times in the '90s, including the edges of Kabul. … When Massoud operated in the north during the fight against the Soviets, and towards the end of the Taliban period, his Northern Front commanders he watched quite closely and controlled well, but in Kabul, no. … People who were supposedly supporting Massoud were just using his name to benefit themselves. … He could not control all of them."

What now? Are they all source falsifiers (although they were there personally)? There exists more than the source used by Fut.Perf. and I took that into account. JCAla (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I want to say in turn, that I find Fut.Perf. behavior very questionable. After a bitter, failed deletion process of an image including Massoud, in which he made repeated unsubstantiated personal attacks against me as well as others and he was noted for incivility and missing detachment by several editors and administrators, he goes to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article (which at least in the English version he never edited before, but of which I am one of the biggest contributors) clearly to pick a fight as shown by this questionable report here. In the failed deletion process several editors questioned Fut.Perf.'s behavior. User:Alanscottwalker said: "I don't think your incivility evidences your administrative competence."[99] User:Sandstein said: "The closing admin [Fut.Perf.] must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote."[100] User:Cavarrone said: "blame this behaviour."[101] User:S Marshall said: "Also, your nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader[JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. ... Please accept this now."[102] And User:Jclemens said: "If you want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment. No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting. Please, let it be."[103] Now, this report against the original uploader of the image he bitterly wanted deleted - that is truly questionable behavior. JCAla (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• JCAla, you've made comments in a way which looks like you've replied to yourself at least twice; in future discussions, could you please structure your response so that you do not seem to reply to yourself? That is, you may need to wait for others to respond before you decide to insert further comments. 18:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note I have proposed WP:Dispute Resolution to Future Perfect and JCAla on their respective talk pages. Hopefully some AGF, can be restored between the two, as this appears to be focused in a content dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (Same answer as on my talkpage): This is absurd. There cannot be a "content dispute" about taking a source that says "X was responsible for war crimes" and use it as a citation for the claim that "X wasn't responsible for war crimes". There cannot be a rational dispute resolution with a person who believes that if source A says P, and source B says !P, it is okay to claim that A also says !P, and who can see nothing logically wrong with that. It has nothing to do with "AGF"; this is a kind of behaviour to which a block is the only rational response. Did you even read the source and the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The interesting thing is that your interpretation of what the report allegedly says varies greatly from what Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman, expert in the field of war crimes, writes the overall report says: "But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres". And I think the only rational response to your recent administrative behavior, be it in the nomination/review/nomination or be it in the reasons for this report seeking to get someone blocked indef (who uploaded an image you wanted deleted) because of a disagreement over ONE source, is a review of your administrative rights. ADDED: Now he removed this content, claiming that Steve Coll with "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" was not referring to something including Massoud, when he most certainly was. SOURCE: "... he [Massoud] was willing to drop old grievances and link his Northern Alliance with the exiled King Zahir Shah in Rome. ... "Talk to Zahir Shah," he urged. "Tell him that I accept him as head of state." This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance ..." (Ghost Wars, BY Steve Coll, p. 558) And he claims that Massoud was not part of the Rome process, when he most certainly was part of it. SOURCE: "Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years has lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander. ... Their current partnership was a measure of just how serious each of them approached this effort." ("Come back to Afghanistan: Trying to rebuild a country with my father", BY Said Hyder Akhbar, p. 20) JCAla (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • FutPerf: I have replied on your talk page. I hope there can be a step back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction ban

As my proposal for Dispute Resolution appears to have spectacularly failed.[104] I propose an interaction ban between the two editors Fut.Perf. and JCAla, as they can no longer assume any good faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. How about examining whether JCAla has engaged in longterm tendentious editing and source falsification, as Fut. Perf. has alleged, before proposing something like this? These are serious policy violations that damage the value of the encyclopedia, but you seem to think this is merely an interpersonal dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have examined the locus of the dispute. I basically come down with User:Pectore (above) and given the personal interaction between the two, across several forums, I think it's warranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note Somehow an edit conflict with JCAla caused my comment above to delete a comment of his. (That was not my intention and I apologize). I am willing to reconsider/withdraw my proposal (and say I was wrong to make it) but this is basically what AN/I currently has before it: Editor 1 edit summary: 'You've mirepresented a source.' Editor 2 edit summary: 'No I have not'. Then, no article talk page discussion (ala BRD). No editor talk page discussion. No, anyone of a half dozen notice boards to hash out the disagreement. Rather, an AN/I report that Editor two is bad. Then a long discussion about sources with the claim by editor 2 that he is representing a source as others have. This is not an Incident. This is not how editors come to agreement and understanding or honorable disagreement, unless they just can't deal with each other, in which case they should just separate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Alanscottwalker, this is not the normal way. If Fut.Perf.'s intention was to improve the article he would at least have started a discussion on the talk page, but nothing, not a single word. He came to an article he never edited before, did several controversial changes, and then immediately came here. That all happened in the context of that image deletion discussion mentioned above. Also, he has not established any pattern of supposed falsification, instead he comes here with a disagreement on one source hoping for the help of someone I had a dispute with. The comment I made above, which accidentally got removed, was the following. I invite anyone to check the following (less complicated) matter in which Fut.Perf. claims a second supposed source falsification.

Fut.Perf. removed this content claiming source falsification.

1) Fut.Perf. claims Steve Coll with "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" was not referring to something including Massoud, when he most certainly was.

SOURCE: "... he [Massoud] was willing to drop old grievances and link his Northern Alliance with the exiled King Zahir Shah in Rome. ... "Talk to Zahir Shah," he urged. "Tell him that I accept him as head of state." This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance ..." (Ghost Wars, BY Steve Coll, p. 558)

2) And Fut.Perf. claims that Massoud was not part of the Rome process, when he most certainly was part of it.

SOURCE: "Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years has lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander. ... Their current partnership was a measure of just how serious each of them approached this effort." ("Come back to Afghanistan: Trying to rebuild a country with my father", BY Said Hyder Akhbar, p. 20)

This is very easy to check and I invite anyone to do so. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(deindent) Support - This seems like a vicious feud between two users, one of whom is an administrator. That said, I am curious as to what evidence has prompted Akhilleus to allege "serious policy violations". Surely we are not just taking FutPerf at his word without diffs? I for one am not sure JCAla is even right in the content dispute, but I do not think anything fruitful is coming out of FutPerf telling him he is bad. Might as well let someone else tell him that if he is tendentious.Pectore^talk 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "if Fut. Perf. is correct, these are serious policy violations..." but I thought that was clear. Alanscottwalker is probably right to say that coming to ANI w/no attempts at dispute resolution isn't standard procedure, but this is where we are. Before proposing an interaction ban, it's necessary to check whether Fut. Perf.'s allegations are correct. If you don't check, and Fut. Perf. is right that JCAla is misrepresenting the content of his sources, then you're leaving the field open to an editor who's violating our basic content policies. Hopefully Alanscottwalker did this, but when I wrote earlier he hadn't indicated that he had examined the substance of Fut. Perf.'s allegations—and from your post I'm not sure that you have, either. Misrepresenting the content of sources is not a trivial thing—it's pure poison for an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And indeed, after reading the relevant portions of "Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001" by the Afghanistan Justice Project ([105]), I agree with Fut. Perf. that this edit by JCAla misrepresents the source. The Afghanistan Justice Project's report says that Massoud bears responsibility for war crimes, but JCAla's edit says "Ahmad Shah Massoud did not order any crimes." and cites the Afghanistan Justice Project as a source for that text. But this is the opposite of what the report says—as Fut. Perf. has already stated above, the report says that Massoud personally ordered military actions which amounted to war crimes.

Now it's true, this situation might have been solved by dispute resolution which resulted in the article accurately reflecting the source, so that the article says that the Afghanistan Justice Project says that Massoud is responsible for war crimes. Is JCAla willing to edit the article to say that? Well, in his last edit (which violated 3RR as Fut. Perf. notes), there's a (modified) quote from the Afghanistan Justice Project's report which says "[T]here is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered abuses." But taking this quote out of context is misleading, because the report says "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered the abuses. However, they failed to take action against the commander and forces responsible, and instead attempted to cover up the crime." So, no, I don't think he wants to represent the source accurately—I think he wants to misrepresent it in order to excuse Massoud from war crimes. But I'm happy to be proven wrong—JCAla just needs to edit the article to show that some reliable sources blame Massoud for atrocities.

I suppose this discussion should have taken place on the article's talk page. That's standard procedure, yes? But standard procedure often lets tendentious editors have their way with articles or entire topic areas for years. That's bad for editors who care about proper representation of sources, and it's bad for the encyclopedia. In future, though, I think that if Fut. Perf. sees a 3RR violation, he should probably go to the 3RR board instead of ANI...the 3RR board is more predictable. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion should have taken place, elsewhere. I think you make a lot of sense but, why did the discussion not take place elsewhere? If it's because the two editors cannot deal with one another, they cannot in good faith try to see each others points, and they will not commit to dispute resolution and consensus on content, then the functioning of this entire Project is endangered. JCAla may be entirely wrong but it's a crucial leap to say he has evil intent. He could be mistaken; he could have weighted the sources incorrectly; he could be negligent and in need corrective feedback; he could be trying to do something right but in the wrong way -- but this is not the place you begin that discussion unless one has already decided he is evil, and that's not how this place works or can work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the following suggestion as a compromise in this content dispute.[106] The article on the disputed issues now reads as follows:

"The Afghanistan Justice Project (AJP) says, that "while [Hekmatyar's anti-government] Hizb-i Islami is frequently named as foremost among the factions responsible for the deaths and destruction in the bombardment of Kabul, it was not the only perpetrator of these violations."[29] According to the AJP, "the scale of the bombardment and kinds of weapons used represented disproportionate use of force" by all the factions involved - including the government forces.[29]" [...]

"The major criticism of Massoud's human rights record centers on the 1993 killing of Hazara civilians in the Afshar neighborhood of Kabul. This was Massoud's operation, while defense minister, to capture the military and political headquarters of the Shia Hezbi Wahdat in west Kabul after Wahdat leader Abdul Ali Mazari withdrew from the government and began secret talks with Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami. Massoud's Jamiat forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i-Islami sent in troops at five o'clock in the morning on February 11, 1993. Mazari and his commanders fled the University Social Science Institute, where they had their headquarters, by about one o'clock in the afternoon. Troops of both Jamiat and Ittihad undertook a search operation that investigators later described as "a mass exercise in abuse and looting." But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued. Was Massoud a "human rights abuser" with a"record of brutality?" In the seesaw fighting in northern Shamali in 1999, "there was a tendency in the heat of battle not to take prisoners," said Davis, who spent several months each year with Massoud's forces from 1981 to 2001. "But," he added, "atrocities in the real sense of that term I'm not aware of" There was "no pattern of repeated killings of enemy civilians or military prisoners" by Massoud's forces, according to Davis."

— War crimes expert Roy Gutman, How we missed the story

In the context of personal assaults on civilians by armed faction members, the Afghanistan Justice Project notes:

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered the abuses."

— Afghanistan Justice Project

I added the general bombardment. I added Roy Gutman's summary of the source with regards to Afshar. And I elaborated further on the context of the sentence quoted. This should and could have been discussed on the article's talk page though.JCAla (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still distorted, still quotemining, still false quotations, still tendentious. JCAla shows no signs of understanding what is wrong with his editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, really? What is false about these quotations? And what exactly is distorted? Like in the deletion discussion you seem to think that you have the ultimate monopoly on the ultimate truth. JCAla (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still presenting the "there is no indication ..." quote as if it was a general statement referring to the totality of M.'s actions during the war, rather than exclusively to one specific incident. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not referring exclusively to one incidence. It says, "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report" and does indeed say so in the context of assault of an armed group against a civilian. If we look at the source for the War in Kabul period, we only have this incidence and the looting in Afshar (ordered to be halted by Massoud according to source) as "other instances" of "personal assaults on civilians by armed faction members" of his forces. Or do you see something else in that source in that context for that period that fits into the category of personal assaults of armed groups belonging to his troops? This is correct:

In the context of personal assaults on civilians by armed faction members, the Afghanistan Justice Project notes:

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered the abuses."

— Afghanistan Justice Project

JCAla (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not get more obvious than this. We are discussing here, and per another supervote, Fut.Perf. again simply removes without discussing it properly here first. I expect the same to happen to this edit of mine (which he before claimed as source falsification also) and please, I invite anyone to look if there is the slightest hint of source falsification in this edit, because there is none. JCAla (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Investigation of Fut.Perf. claims

• We are talking about one sentence here. So please refrain making any accusations of a habit of source falsification, if you present no evidence for that other than a disagreement over the use of that one sentence. This sentence was used by me in a very specific context, which was the context of personal assaults of armed members on civilians - the same context it is being used in by the Afghanistan Justice Project. "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered the abuses." This by no means is falsification, especially as I took into account what the others sources say. Now let us investigate the claims Fut.Perf. made one by one:

• Fut.Perf. claims: "The report also deals with a massacre and mass rape in a place called Afshar, committed by Massoud's forces. (pp.82ff.) Here too, responsibility is clearly being attributed to Massoud personally."

Roy Gutman, expert on war crimes, writes about same issue and source: "But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command."

Let us investigate Fut.Perf.'s claim, which is the true source falsification here and which obviously stands in stark contradiction to how Gutman summarized the source. We find the Afghanistan Justice Project's report of war crimes during the Afshar military operation (the legitimate military operation itself needs to be distinguished from the escalation/abuses after the operation had largely achieved its legitimate objectives) under the section: The War Crimes: Indiscriminate Attacks, Rapes, Abductions and Summary Executions (p. 85) which has three subsections.

Subsection: Summary Executions and Disappearances

"Witnesses interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project stated that a group of Hizb-i Wahdat soldiers was taken prisoner from Wahdat headquarters at the Social Science Institute by Ittihad-i Islami forces on February 11. In addition to these, a large number of civilian men and suspected Wahdat militants were arrested from the Afshar area after Ittihad captured it. The number taken is not known. One group of Hazara prisoners held by Ittihad-i Islami was subsequently used by the Ittihad commanders to undertake burial of the dead from the Afshar operation, after one week. This group of witnesses has reported that their relatives were among the civilian and military prisoners taken by Ittihad who subsequently disappeared and are believed to have been summarily executed by Ittihad forces. The Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... The armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ...

Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ...

Subsection: Rape by Ittihad Forces

During the Afshar operation, Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami forces used rape and other assaults on civilians to drive the civilian population from the area. The Afghanistan Justice Project interviewed many witnesses who described incidents of rape by Ittihad forces during the Afshar operation. Witness M. (see statement above) was injured in the hand and leg when Ittihad soldiers ... The Ittihad troops ...

Witness Sh. stated that after capturing Afshar, Ittehad-i Islami troops ...

Subsection: Indiscriminate Shelling and bombardment of civilian areas

"The Afshar area was subjected to heavy bombardment during the first day of the operation. The principal military targets would have been the Social Science Institute and the other main Wahdat garrisons. However, the Social Science Institute was never hit. The majority of the rockets, tank shells and mortars fell in civilian residential areas. As the command centers of both the Ittihad and Jamiat forces were within site of Afshar, it appears that the attack was intended to drive the civilian population from Afshar—which it succeeded in doing. The number killed in the assault (not including those summarily executed) is not known. Virtually every witness interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project described seeing bodies in the area. Indeed, the shelling and mortar fire was so intense, many residents hid on the first day, and did not try to leave."

Where is Massoud? Where is this personal responsibility for rape and executions? It is no there. "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" (p. 82)

Is this all then, an "appeared to be" when it comes to the shelling, when at the same time he let the civilians flee into north Kabul which he controlled? (Afghanistan Justice Project, p. 85: "Women and children fled mainly towards Taimani, in north Kabul, and they found shelter in schools and mosques in the Ismaili quarter there.") Also for the shelling, under the title "Shura-i Nazar / Jamiat-i Islami: Command and Control of Military Operations" it says "Massoud is named repeatedly as directing operations, whether they were involved short-range artillery, long-range rockets or giving orders to fighter pilots. Mohammad Qasim Fahim, then in charge of intelligence, is also named many times as a crucial link in advising where to target." Of course Fut.Perf. left out the last part of the sentence, creating the impression that every single target was named by Massoud personally, which anyone familiar with warfare will find ridiculous. Directing military operations as an internationally recognized minister of defense against militias attacking the capital, is that a war crime? He directed some of the operations which involved short-range and long-range artillery - others being directed by Fahim. The Afshar operation, however, was a middle-range artillery operation. What does the source say about middle-range? "He says the second type of rocket was middle-range... He said orders to fire these were given by division commanders, for example, Ahmadi, commander of Qargha Division, Panah Khan, commander of Jihadi army, Gada Mohammed Khan, commander of Tapa Sorkh Division and Bismillah Khan. “They launched rockets at Hizb-i Islami bases, such as military zones, military centers like Bagrami, Shah Shahid, and Kart-i Nau, Chilsiton and Wahdat areas like Afshar, Social Science Institute, and Silo and indeed any area in west Kabul that was under the control of Hizb-i Wahdat." So, did he personally command the middle-range as used in Afshar according to the source? No.

Conclusion: 1) No mention of testimonies of massacre by Massoud's forces in this source. 2) No mention of rape in Afshar by Massoud's forces in this source. 3) A mention of a shelling that "appeared to be" but was not directly commanded by Massoud.

We know from other sources that Wahdat forces which were being fought in the operation were positioned in the civilian residential areas as this was a war inside a capital city. We also know from other sources the number of people killed in the streets because of shelling and fighting which was 70. The source has gaps here. In the war crimes section there is no such thing as Fut.Perf. claims. Rather, under the section "Responsibility for the abuses committed during the operation" Massoud is mentioned in the following way, "The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations. He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units" "Overall responsibility" and "directly controlling a military force" is the same as Obama or the leading General has for the War in Afghanistan. But none would say: "The report also deals with a massacre and mass rape in a place called Afghanistan, committed by Obama's forces. Here too, responsibility is clearly being attributed to Obama personally." Just because a report would mention that Obama is the Commander in Chief of the United States military and as such has overall responsibility.

Then we have: "Given the pattern of violence and ethnic tension that had preceded the operation, the general commanders could and should have anticipated the pattern of abuse that would result when launching an offensive into a densely populated Hazara majority area." We have a first-hand account about that issue from the Associated Press' John Jennings which was left out by the Afghanistan Justice Project:

When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions [in Afshar] would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably those of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against Hazara captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more heavily populated areas, and killing many more noncombatants, on the other side of the town. Understandably, he chose the former. In the resulting Afshar operation abuses [by Massoud’s troops] were minimal, as I saw for myself …Of course that has never stopped political opportunists (often masquerading as human rights activists) from inventing a “massacre”, that never, in fact, occurred.

Then we have: "Furthermore, as fighting took place in an area barely two kilometers from the general command post, and field commanders were equipped with radio communications, the general commander must have known of the abuses taking place in Afshar as soon as they started. Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway." A) "must have known" is again weasel. Why "must have"? Would someone who is doing something wrong in a house or somewhere tell by radio communication "I am summarily executing a person right now."? B) Roy Gutman writes: "Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued." The Afghanistan Justice Project writes: "Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... ISA didclaim a Shia constituency and Hussain Anwari, as a senior [Massoud] ISA commander, was under pressure from Shia civilians to make some arrangements for their safety. The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ... It also called for a withdrawal of the offensive troops, leaving a smaller force to garrison the new areas. ... The meeting also seems to have been ineffective in halting the looting of the area, as the destruction of housing in Afshar happened largely after the meeting." So, Massoud did take measures. But as Ittihad forces were not under his direct control, they remained largely uneffective. Above witness testimonials clearly show that the vast majority of abuses was carried out by Ittihad.

This is everything about Massoud and Afshar. Now, where does the report talk about a "massacre and mass rape in a place called Afshar, committed by Massoud's forces". There is not once instance of rape in Afshar by Massoud's forces mentioned in that report. There is also not one testimonial about a massacre by Massoud's forces in that report. The only thing that is in there is looting, which Massoud ordered halted, and a shelling which "appeared to" but was not directly commanded by Massoud.

It is Fut.Perf. who absolutely quotes the citations out of context and by that gives a wrong impression. I. e., he quoted: "Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids". This gives the impression he was behind every single rocket attack, although above it clearly states that he was not involved in the middle-range artillery. The full citation quoted out of context by Fut.Perf. relates ONLY to the use of air force. "Shura-i Nazar and Junbish fighter planes were under separate chains of command. According to a former Shura-i Nazar artillery commander, Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids, via Bismillah Khan. Until the Shura-i Hamahangi pact of January 1994, when Junbish planes became an enemy force, Massoud largely controlled the skies over Kabul." Was the air force used in Afshar according to the source? No, it was not.

The only responsibility which remains then was the fact that he planned the legitimate military operation that "The forces that launched the offensive in west Kabul on February 10-11, 1993 all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations." The objectives of that operation, far from constituting a war crime, are very clearly mentioned in the source, which Fut.Perf. chose to leave out:

"There were two tactical objectives to the operation. First, Massoud intended, through the operation to capture the political and military headquarters of Hizb-i Wahdat, (which was located in the Social Science Institute, adjoining Afshar, the neighborhood below the Afshar mountain in west Kabul), and to capture Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of Hizb-i Wahdat. Second, the ISA intended to consolidate the areas of the capital directly controlled by Islamic State forces ... Given the political and military context of Kabul at the time, these two objectives (which were largely attained during the operation) provide a compelling explanation of why the Islamic State forces attacked Afshar."

Now, the operation only went wrong after its goals had been achieved and armed forces started to search the area. The source writes: "It was this search operation that rapidly became a mass exercise in abuse and looting, as described in the civilian eyewitness testimony" (quoted extensively above) "While it has not been possible to identify individual commanders responsible for specific instances of execution or rape, the Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to identify a number of the commanders who led troops in the operation." Of nine Massoud faction commanders (none of them Massoud personally who was not present personally in Afshar) involved in the operation, TWO were named as commanders leading troops which carried out abuses. Both, Anwar Dangar and Mullah Izzat, later left Massoud's forces. Anwar Dangar, a Pashtun only losely affiliated with Massoud's forces joined the Taliban against Massoud. Mullah Izzat was from the same place as Ittihad leader Sayyaf and subsequently joined Sayyaf.

It is Fut.Perf. who is falsifying the source and who stands in stark contradiction to how senior researchers such as Roy Gutman summarized the source. - There is no mass rape by Massoud's forces in this source. - There is also no testimony for a massacre by Massoud's forces in this source. - There is no direct citation for Massoud commanding the middle-range artillery shelling as used in Afshar in this source. - There is looting by Massoud's forces in this source, ordered halted by Massoud. - There is no direct control of Massoud over Ittihad forces who committed the massacre and rape according to this source. Instead Massoud ordered the massacre committed by Ittihad to be halted, without effect. - There is an overall responsibility as minister of defense for the military operation with clearly defined legitimate objectives.

I am very open to include a line about general indiscrimate shelling during that period in the article which is indeed missing (but not the way Fut.Perf. tried to introduce it but rather in a way embedding it into the overall context of the actual situation such as "While the armed factions responsible may have had military targets in mind, those targets were based or were moving in primarily civilian areas. While they were still legitimate military targets, the scale of the bombardments and kinds of weapons used represented disproportionate use of force" and "While [Hekmatyar's anti-government] Hizb-i Islami is frequently named as foremost among the factions responsible for the deaths and destruction in the bombardment of Kabul, it was not the only perpetrator of these violations." and "Shura-i Nazar/Jamiat-i Islami officials have attempted to justify the bombing of Kabul carried out by their forces from 1992 onwards by saying that their troops represented the forces of the legitimate government and acted to defend that government Kabul from anti-government attacks.147 There is no question that almost immediately following its establishment in April 1992, the government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan ... was under attack".)

I also support using Roy Gutman's summary of the source in question in the article. Last but not least it needs to be noted that the source discussed in only one source out of many presented in the article. We have Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman citing: "There was "no pattern of repeated killings of enemy civilians or military prisoners" by Massoud's forces" Also, Afghanistan expert Edward Girardet and Associated Press journalist John Jennings as well as multiple other sources such as Mohammad Eshaq who says: "He [Massoud] not only did not order any [crimes], but he was deeply distressed by them. I remember once ... Massoud commented that some commanders were behaving badly, and said that he was trying to bring them to justice ..." When deciding what to add from a source this sources need to be taken into accout for due weight. JCAla (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

More examples of source falsification

It is becoming clear that distorting citations are a longstanding pattern with JCAla. Here's another example:

In this [107] edit, from 28 March 2012, JCAla inserts the sensationalist claim that Pakistani army and intelligence service are massively recruiting suicide bombers for the Afghan Taliban [among Afghan refugees in Pakistan]. This is allegedly sourced to this [108] report by Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a decent enough source. It is easy to see that the source says nothing supporting this claim. What it does say is that Pakistani authorities are putting violent pressure on refugees to return, and that reports about the methods of pressure are contradictory: some refugees say they were accused of being Taliban fighters; others say they were urged to become Taliban fighters. Nothing in all the report mentions specific attempts at recruiting suicide bombers. Thus we again have a crystal-clear case of wilful and tendentious misrepresentation of a source, of a magnitude that a simple error or oversight is out of the question.

Challenged about this contradiction on the talkpage by another editor, JCAla reacted with the same tactics as in this thread above: he began citing a whole smokescreen of other sources which allegedly did support his statement [109], seemingly oblivious to the fact that even if that was true, he had still been misrepresenting what this source had said. It is hard to decide if this apparent obtuseness to logic is a sign of malicious deception or a rather extreme case of incompetence. In any case, it is now clear this is a longstanding pattern, it's obviously immune to correction through normal talkpage discussion, and it's deeply damaging to the encyclopedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What a smear campaign ... Beside that the source says: "Another returnee, Abdel Qadir, said he was faced with the opposite challenge, when [Pakistani] intelligence agencies asked him to join the Afghan Taliban, allegedly supported by the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. ... “It is a step by step process. First they come, they talk to you. They ask you for the information … Then gradually they ask you for people they can train and send [to Afghanistan].” “They say, ‘Either you do what we say, or you leave the country.’” One returnee, Janat Gul, from Afghanistan’s Kunar Province, told IRIN recruits are taken in covered trucks to a training camp in the desert called Qariyat - which he himself attended during Soviet years - before being sent to Afghanistan to fight."[110] Then what do you not understand about "more refs to come"? The edit was one edit among multiple edits on that day, a work in progress. I read many sources and I have them in mind when I edit. I added them all in subsequent edits.[111] The section cited THREE different reliable sources in the version I left it for that statement.[112] One of the sources provided is the New York Times: "The evidence is provided in fearful whispers, and it is anecdotal. ... families whose sons had died as suicide bombers in Afghanistan said they were afraid to talk about the deaths because of pressure from Pakistani intelligence agents. Local people say dozens of families have lost sons in Afghanistan as suicide bombers and fighters. One former Taliban commander said in an interview that he had been jailed by Pakistani intelligence officials because he would not go to Afghanistan to fight."[113] I challenge you to show me anything wrong with the statement or the sources. You won't be able to do so. Instead you will start a new smear campaign for me to waste my time on correcting your false claims. JCAla (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note, I am out of this discussion for today. I do not have the time to counter a smear campaign the whole day by someone who has obviously made it his agenda to get me blocked and has nothing else to do. For people who want to look into this, please investigate three things: 1) "Massoud" and Fut.Perf. source falsification, 2) have a look at this section mentioned by Fut.Perf. above as I left it and as it has been standing for over a month now and see if you find anything falsified, 3) please have a look at the following example concerning the "Pashtun-Tajik alliance" where Fut.Perf.'s claim is most obviously wrong.

Fut.Perf. removed this content claiming source falsification.

1) Fut.Perf. claims Steve Coll with "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" was not referring to something including Massoud, when he most certainly was.

SOURCE: "... he [Massoud] was willing to drop old grievances and link his Northern Alliance with the exiled King Zahir Shah in Rome. ... "Talk to Zahir Shah," he urged. "Tell him that I accept him as head of state." This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance ..." (Ghost Wars, BY Steve Coll, p. 558)

2) And Fut.Perf. claims that Massoud was not part of the Rome process, when he most certainly was part of it.

SOURCE: "Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years has lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander. ... Their current partnership was a measure of just how serious each of them approached this effort." ("Come back to Afghanistan: Trying to rebuild a country with my father", BY Said Hyder Akhbar, p. 20)

Have a nice day. JCAla (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting this back on track

So, with JCAla having managed to make this thread utterly unreadable, by obliterating it with 45 kB of smokescreen, I can hardly blame anybody for no longer following it, but still, could we now have some action? He's still edit-warring on the article even while this thread is active. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JCAla_reported_by_User:Akhilleus_.28Result:_.29; it's a straightforward case of edit-warring, but the fact that I commented here already probably means that people would think I'm involved in a "content dispute". I don't think this thread is going to accomplish anything worthwhile; it's clear to me that JCAla is cherrypicking sources and misrepresenting their content, and this means that this matter should not be considered a content dispute but a case of policy violation, but I doubt anyone else is going to put in the legwork to confirm that. WP:WALLSOFTEXT often have that effect. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so far. Well, I don't really see why you, for example, couldn't take admin action here. In any case, all anybody needs to read through is the evidence in the collapsed bit right at the top of the thread (which you already verified), and the top of the section just above. It's pretty easy to verify and pretty obvious once you look at the actual text. How could a case of disruptive editing possibly get any more obvious than this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Akhilleus reported him to get more uninvolved eyes on the conflict. Their opinions on the matter will likely vindicate your concerns about his manner of editing.Pectore^talk 23:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked JCAla for 72 hours; see here for my reasoning. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a good block on TE basis all by itself. It's harder to look into the (separate) source misrepresentation claims without access to the printed sources such as Coll's book, which I don't have but might try to find (Coll has been in the news recently). I thought JCala's filibustering in the deletion discussions about that Massoud picture was awful, and that Fut Perf's analysis of the situation with the photo was correct, though maybe Fut Perf is by now a little bit too directly engaged. Without wanting to rehash the whole thing, the DRV comments about "supervotes" seemed especially bogus: since AfD is supposedly not a vote to begin with, there can't be such a thing as a supervote. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The image dispute is not really directly relevant to the issue now – although I would agree JCAla's conduct there showed the same WP:SOUP approach, disrupting the processes to a point where other editors could understandably no longer see the forest for the trees. In the present case, the two falsified sources are both online, so verification isn't really that difficult. What JCAla says about the other print sources is quite irrelevant. The point is just that he's still not getting that if source A says X, you can't use it to support the opposite of X simply because there are other sources that support the opposite of X. He seems to be genuinely unable to grasp that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• While, I had hoped this discussion would take place in a less heated environment. JCAla, wold appear to benefit from (re)reading WP:V, we cite sources directly for the propositions they have made; WP:OR, we do not aggregate sources to support new editor opinions; and WP:NPOV, we weight sources, according to standards. It is sometimes a hard and tricky balance, especially in "fog of war" articles and other editors might, from time to time be of the opinion that one is doing it incorrectly. Try not to be put off merely because the other editor says they are in all ways right, and you are in all ways wrong, because that is just generally untrue -- patience. Be willing to compromise. There can be honorable disagreement or plain misunderstanding, all the way around. On the other hand, JCAla apparently reads extensively and brings sources to the attention of readers, which is admirable, and useful. He also discusses sources and trying to weight them. He must generally stop serial reverting and follow WP:BRD, even when the other editor is doing "wrong." He should be made acquainted with the extensive, if sometimes slow routes of WP:DR, which is what I had hoped this process would lead to, especially since he is interested in that contentious part of the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion

I have been having some wikihounding problems with the above user and I believe he is taking matters way too far in personal attacks and attempts to humiliate me (or make humiliation a perception from his actions or words), hound me and continue to berate me and my edits that now an involved editor has asked me to stop editing.[114] The request is not the actual the issue, but that the representation of me is meant to define me as unworthy to make me leave or for others to ask me to leave. If this is how we do things I am shocked. But I believe the editors has done enough to be discouraged from further behavior. I have some rights as an editor and one is my reputation should not be stained by these kinds of attacks that effect the way others see me to a point of requesting I stop editing. Look...I have a right to edit without personal attacks and use of intimidating and personal tactics aimed directly at me and for the full purpose of driving me off Wikipedia. I will not be like other editors and just walk away. I have invested far too much time and effort in collaboration and attempting to better myself as an editor to put up with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I came upon Amadscientist's BRD changes for the same reason he went there to edit it -- we were both engaged in a dispute that involved it. I didn't check his contribs once to see where he went. As for my comment on his writing, I was at a loss for an alternative. He insisted on editing BRD almost unilaterally, reverted reverts of his edits, and even after giving up on that, continued with rapid numbers of "copyedits" that resulted in the same degradation of the page's quality. I was being honest as a last resort.

It's not like I called him an asshole, twat, or idiot, for the purposes of releasing aggression -- as various editors have gotten away with numerous times here. His copyediting skills are just not good, and being kinder about it would've involved inventing some new excuse to tweak each of his changes to basically revert them without warring. I thought this was the better option. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't we just cover this a day ago? I suggested reverting back as a neutral party and you just dismissed the idea Amadscientist, saying [115] "let the discussion and editors do their work. It's just how we do things and I feel there is no reason for administrators to intervene at the moment and perhaps at all as i am sure there is an editor that will be as bold as I." so I left the subject alone. Now you complain that there is an editor as bold as you are, and he is using the talk page in the spirit and letter of BRD. Equazcion's comments to you were blunt but not incivil. There wasn't a consensus for the changes then or now, which is what the talk page is for, and it seems to be moving along just fine. Reverting them to the previous state seems perfectly fine. You've been bold, it was reverted, now go discuss. This is exactly what you asked for, and exactly what the page says to do. Nothing to do here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no rights here. Multiple editors have told OP his edits to BRD are not improving the essay and suggested he stop, I don't see any reason for admin intervention. Nobody Ent 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I am not here saying that I want intervention in the article or the talk page. If that were the case I would be here arguing for something like "stop him from messing with my changes" or "we should revert back to the way before his changes now" or anything about the article or the talk page. I was talking about his personal attacks on me as an editor and not the edit itself that has continued from the OWS Project Page to the OWS article and then through dispute resolution in more than aggresive behavior in ways designed to do more than simply annoy me. I may not have been clear. My my apologies. I do not exactly appreciate or agree with your use of my words you present back to me as it is not my suggestion that you intervene in the editing or any content dispute there in regards to BRD. Equazcion's comments were a personal attack and a pretty egregious one designed as continued wikihounding, but I understand you feel this is about just editing BRD. For the record, let that go naturaly as I sated but discourage editors from personal attacks. I see this as a misunderstanding in my original post. So I clarified. I think we do have at least that much right (edit) expectation or at the very least...permission to simply treat the situation in the same manner back. I can be blunt in the same manner back to Equazcion himself, would that help the siuation? Is that the direction I am recieving or was my original post misread?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I don't mean "right" in any legal sense, so perhaps the best way to have said that would have been "expectation".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In the context of how and what he said, this is not a personal attack in any way whatsoever. It was a blunt observation that he expressed with some hesitation. Sometimes we don't like hearing someone tells us something in such a clear fashion, but I don't see any malice, any ill will, or any bad faith in his statement, even if it was very direct. Sometimes, you just have to say it like it is, and he felt this was one of those times. As for treating the situation in the same manner back, of course you are free to make observations. I would warn you, however, that since you have trouble differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" that you use your best judgement and focus on what will persuade others, not what you think is "the same manner". Again, no administrative action is required here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with having trouble "differentiating "blunt" from "personal attack" at all. How did you come up with that? Becuase it isn't on the list of things that are never accepted? I would call that disimissing my issue. You said "in any way whatsoever". That is under who's definition? How are you differentiating the context of what and how he said it? I see....made my bed sort of thing. Stuck out like a sore thumb and now I have to pay the consequences of that by letting this guy make accusations about my persona ablities. And the wikihounding thing is not even addressed but just dismissed. Got it. Thanks anyway Dennis, I don't feel satisfied with your assesment at all but at least I can accept them as the final word. Basicly...move along.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call the differentiation between blunt and personal attack a subjective measure, just as easily as one could interpret your response as rude and dismissive. I don't think Equazcion was reverting your edits to spite you; I think he genuinely felt that your contributions were not enforcing the integrity of a page that is intended to provide guidelines. He does not be deserve to be berated for that, which is specifically what this thread is for. Others reverted over a period of time, which is not an edit war- an edit war only exists if there are three reversions by an editor under 24 hours, while your case had several editors over an extended period of time. That being said, you insinuated far more than Equazcion on the essay's talk page, which doesn't provide a good foundation for your unilateral argument. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BRD

I have boldly restored the WP:BRD essay to the state it was in before Amadscientist started tinkering with it. I don't believe his changes were, in general, improving the essay. Amadscientist should now discuss his proposed changes on the essay's talk page, and arrive at a compromise or consensus with other interested users before further editing it. What should not happen, as I understand the Bold, revert, discuss process, is for Amadscientist to reinstate the changes he wishes to make without that discussion, the first step in a potential editwar, since the goal is not BRRR... without D.

Since I am not an admin, this is not an admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you made a bold edit...the next part of this method IS a revert. BRD is not an excuse to demand discussion BEFORE editing...but that is not what this ANI was about anyway and those edits you boldly removed were also edits of another editor so you are basicly saying BRD is consensus and no one can touch it and it stands exactly as it is until consensus agrees to any change whatsoever. That's not BRD. That's concrete.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that my logic was wrong, and that a Revert would be the next step in the BRD process. Nevertheless, since many of your edits have been disputed throughout your editing of this essay, I hope that you will not revert, and will instead engage in a consensus discussion with fellow editors instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not have reverted you and I have agreed to a request from a resonable editor to cool off for a day or so. Thanks. In all this madness you are the first person to actually acknowledge something I was correct about.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For a Yankee, BMK is indeed pretty reasonable. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the important thing to note here is that there is so much disagreement with the edits to BRD that they have spilled over to ANI twice now: a clear sign that talk page discussion needs to take place. Thank you BMK. Amadscientist, good luck with your pursuit--you'll have to start it on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The main point was to attract attention and discussion. I made a VP thread about it. I then made an edit and went slowly over three days and 40 something edits. I was also starting over from the beginning attempting to work with the most interested editor and that still didn't work. I am talking on the talk page and have been and will continue to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. We are now at the Discussion phase and need to reach a consensus on these changes before they are reinstated. This is what collaborative editing is all about. Acting solo and being bold can be okay, but when other editors show their concern by reverting, then the BRD cycle starts and the solo editor who was bold needs to collaborate with the other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:POVbrigand is making repeated unsourced negative comments about a respected academic in relation to the Energy Catalyzer article.

There has been an ongoing debate regarding the Energy Catalyzer article lede, and in particular, to the inclusion of a quotation by Ugo Bardi (a science professor at the University of Florence), who characterises the E-Cat affair as "pathological science". From what little credible coverage of the device that has been published, Bardi's views on the matter seem to very much reflect that of the mainstream, but proponents of 'LENR/cold fusion' have chosen to charaterise Bardi as having 'an agenda' and 'bias', due to his support for a minority scientific perspective on an entirely unrelated issue - he is involved with the Italian branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. Despite repeated requests, POVbrigand has provided no sources whatsoever to support his claims that this would lead a respected academic to give misleading or 'biased' comments on the E-Cat. Given the unsourced nature of the claims, the repeated refusal to withdraw them or back them up with evidence, and the persistant soapboxing that POVbrigand has been engaging in over the topic, I can see no solution other than asking that he be topic-banned from the E-Cat article, and any others relating to 'cold fusion/LENR' until he accepts that WP:BLP policy applies to Wikipedia talk pages, and that they are not an appropriate forum for smearing respected academics in order to promote fringe (or pathological) 'science', and wild claims regarding household 'LENR' reactors allegedly about to go into production soon (if they can locate the robotised factory that is supposed to be making them - it seems to move around with a will of its own. Or at least, to move around when its last claimed location becomes an embarrasment...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Andy is grossly misstating my conduct and the situation in general. Discussing whether a quote is biased in order to assess Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements is not a BLP issue. In his blog, Bardi uses a picture of the sunken cruise ship Costa Concordia, which I think is clearly showing the opinion nature of the blog. However, I have repeatedly stated that Bardi does raise valid points, I am not smearing Bardi. I think that I raised valid points regarding NPOV because of the use of the quote from the blog in the lead of the article and my conduct cannot be mistaken as soapboxing. My interest is to improve the article and I have made a proposal how this dispute can be solved. I have repeatedly stated that I do not think that Rossi's device has been proven to work, so I am not promoting anything or anyone other than promoting NPOV for the article --POVbrigand (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you assert that Bardi's involvement with ASPO makes his comments on the E-Cat 'biased': this was a specific claim you have repeatedly made, and have refused to justify. Stating that his support for a minority perspective on an unrelated issue makes his comments on the E-Cat invalid is a smear, plain and simple. It was obvious right from the start that the ASPO issue was picked on to 'justify' attempts to make Bardi appear a less credible source than he is. He says nothing regarding the E-Cat that isn't in accord with a mainstream perspective. And yes, you were soapboxing on the article talk page - and seem to be doing the same here. Your claims to be promoting 'NPOV' are frankly getting tiresome, and somewhat ridiculous considering your endless attempts to promote fringe 'science' - though there isn't much that science can say regarding the E-Cat, unless the science in question is psychology... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. POVbrigand is still making the same unsourced negative comments in the discussions: "...Bardi is linked to an association which makes the use of the quote in the lead even more troublesome". [116]. He clearly has no intention of complying with my request to either provide evidence to support his claim that Bardi's position on the 'Peak Oil' issue would lead him to misrepresent the E-Cat, or withdraw the claims. And still he continues with his ridiculous claims to be supporting 'NPOV' while at the same time promoting fringe 'inventions' dubious 'science' and old-fashioned hokum. Wikipedia doesn't need POV-pushing SPAs like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I haven't made any edits after to put this AN/I up. You are trying to convince somebody to ban me, so you can end the content dispute. I think it is easy for an uninvolved editor to conclude that my conduct is fair enough. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that: I'd misread the timestamp. However, you still have neither justified your claims regarding Bardi's alleged 'bias' due to his position on 'Peak Oil', nor withdrawn the claims. Which are you going to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not AnnaBennet --POVbrigand (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What the heck has that got to do with anything? Answer the question: are you going to justify your claims regarding Bardi, or withdraw them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article and its history, i think the statement is usable, even in the lede. It does represent the scientific consensus, and the Arb Com psudoscience case does ensure we represent pseudoscience as such. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Ugo Bardi quote is appropriate, an accurate portrayal of the mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Metrication of British Transport involing a possible banned user

An annonymous editor using IP address 94.197.146.76 has started reverting my work on the article Metrication of British Transport. One of the reversions [117] has all the hallmarks of User:DeFacto who was banned a month go and who subseqently made two attempts to reenter Wikipedia via Sock Puppet accounts. The give-aways are to reword the reference to the Railway Group Standards body (who are the authortity on the matter) to "one British website" implying that it has no authority. He also demanded a citation that a difference of 0.1 mm which was noted as being "well within engineering tolerances". Anybody who has an iota of knowledge about engineering tolerances will know that such a request is pure pedantry.

I have checked activity on this IP address and it appears that no editor has used this address in the past.

As I write this, I see that this annonymous editor is now plastering the article with many more "corrections" of the type that I assocate with DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your best option is to go to WP:SPI, which is where it would have to go eventually anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a wholly disingenuous allegation. There was no impersonation of a banned user, no rewording of references, no "plastering" and the only citations requested were for unsupported claims and assertions. I have done no more than attempt to reflect in the article what the sources say and remove homemade commentary which is not supported. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, isn't it? 94.197.146.76 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a habit in this topic of making sweeping statements about usage and them citing them to individual instances of usage. For example, one might take this article and use it to say that the BBC uses kilometres for distance. This is OR: the article doesn't refer to the usage of units of measurement, so all we can say is that that particular article uses kilometres for distance. The extrapolated conclusion may be accurate. It may not be. We don't have the evidence from individual instances of usage to know. This is the sort of thing that the IP is getting at.

I have enough experience to know that there are several editors who do not consider such original research to be a problem. My example demonstrates that it is - because it's trivial to find cites from the BBC that use miles for distance.

The article does not help itself in that it is entirely reliant on primary sources. It doesn't cite any secondary sources at all. While lists of sources have been provided on talk, all of those that are also independent of the subject (i.e. excluding those produced by pressure groups that deal with metrication in general) are news reports dealing with a relatively small part of the article scope (road signage). So, concerns about notability are genuine and legitimate.

Is the IP De Facto? I don't know, though it would not surprise me. But some of the criticisms made of this article are fair and the concern about notability is a valid one. Kahastok talk 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WFSB

I'd appreciate some help regarding my initial involvement at WFSB [118], and subsequent discussion. In short, I reverted a large swatch of unsourced content and was warned for vandalism, all of which I explained at what I thought would be the appropriate project page. Since then it's been a rather downhill affair [119]. I'm happy to walk away from this, and have no intent to edit war over the content in question. I don't find it particularly controversial, but it offers a lot of factual detail without references, and comes from an IP account with a history of unsourced edits and a copyright violation or two. In fact, after this I never want to see a tv article again. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First, although you don't mention him by name, I've notified the editor (User:Neutralhomer) with whom you're having the dispute. Second, unless there's some back story on you with which I'm unfamiliar, I'm not sure why Neutralhomer is coming down so hard on you for removing unsourced material (recently added by another IP), nor am I sure why Neutralhomer is labeling your edit as vandalism. You properly included an edit summary in your reversion, and it seemed to comport with precisely with what you were doing. Also, I fail to understand why he accused you of violating 3RR - there's no indication of that without a lot of synthesis on his part. He also accuses you of being a sock puppet of User:Markvs88 (related to his 3RR accusation when you challenged it) - I have no idea if that's true, but a better course of action if that's what he thinks would be to file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--I didn't notify Neutralhomer because his page is protected. I was surprised by the entire chain reaction you've outlined, and by the bit of roughing up I received. I didn't mention the editor by name because I prefer that the history, with the IP's edits, be viewed in its entirety. Also, I'd rather not make the issue needlessly pointed or personal, especially since it involves an editor who is a valuable contributor, as he clearly is. I'm not operating as an alternative account for anyone, and certainly not trying to evade 3RR by using multiple accounts. A WP:SPI report is welcome, though it would be fruitless. Anyway, I've shown up as a 99 IP on these boards before, and you're always helpful. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a complaint but as reference for future cases, if you're unable to notify someone for some reason such as a semiprotected talk page, it's best to mention this in your first comment so people can do it for you, and also so people know you tried. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed in more detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WFSB. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP already provided a link to that discussion in his initial post. Indeed, most of what I criticized Neutralhomer for came from comments made by him in that discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

99. seems to have a lack of patience when it comes to getting a response. Real life happened, so I wasn't ignoring him or avoiding his questions, I just wasn't anywhere near my computer. Now, to answer Bbb23's points (thanks for the notification), the reason I reverted as vandalism is the information 99. removed is included in all TV station pages per WP:TVS rules (modeled after MOS) for TV station page development and layout. User:Markvs88 removed the same information earlier and I took it that 99. was User:Markvs88's IP. If this is against AGF, I'm guilty as charged. The accusation of 99. being User:Markvs88 is the same as above, same with the 3RR.

As for my answer to 99.'s questions, I have posted that on the thread on the TVS talk page so we don't have conversations spread out over multiple talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd respond that my report here evidences some small amount of patience, given the accusations and tone at the TV projects page. The content we're discussing includes passages devoted to the station's history and ratings. None of it's sourced. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I told 99., the burden lies with him. He has tagged the page with "references" templates, so the burden is on him to find those references. I have told him where/how to find one (or several depending on his choice), the rest is up to him. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's not how it works. The discussion has indeed continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WFSB, and I'm finding it increasingly puzzling, as the policies I'm encountering there, at least as enunciated by Neutralhomer, are very different from those I've worked with in other branches of Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate more eyes there. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea, cause I am tiring quickly of the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and the inability to "get it" of 99. Apparently, an IP who has made a couple hundred edits since May 3 knows more than I do about policy and I have been here 5 years, 8 months and 21 days (according to the little userbox on my userpage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're waving credentials, I'm an older academic who's edited here since 2006. Your version of policies is unlike any I've encountered here, and seeks to protect unsourced content, and place the onus for referencing on a party who challenges it. As for intransigence, and not to belabor the point, but you issued me a vandalism warning, accused me of socking and edit warring, and stand fast by unsourced material. I'd suggest being tired is appropriate. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm only tired of you 99. and your inability to "get it". I am actually quite awake thanks to some Pepsi. :) Unless anyone else has anything else to add and since this is going nowhere fast, I think this can be marked as resolved (at least on ANI) and discussion can continue on the WP:TVS talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I would appreciate this not be closed as 'resolved'. I've got all the patience in the world to allow this to percolate. I think you're misinterpreting several Wikipedia policies, and my question now is whether your views represent just yourself or the TV project as a whole. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Nuetralhomer's apparent personal attack and attack in general, either. so much of that article is without inline citation, that substantial deletion would be appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Alan: I am just following WP:TVS rules. To change those, ya gotta take it up with WT:TVS. I don't make 'em, I just follow 'em.

@All: I have done my best to help 99. with sources for the areas he wants sourced, I have even linked him to the page, I can do no more. I am not doing it for him as I have taken a Melatonin and am near sleep. This will be my last response on this because I am not sure what else I can say or how else I can help that I haven't already either said or tried. If anyone has any questions, message me on my talk page and I will respond sometime tomorrow morning (give me time to respond in case I sleep in). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I thought perhaps I was the only one who wondered about the situation:

• I understand the concerns about "drive-by tagging", but I don't believe it really is policy that the onus is on the editor who finds unreferenced content to provide those references. (If I'm wrong here, please show me.)
• Some of the items noted as unreferenced do seem easy to reference (like anchor names), but some of the text is more than just anchor names, and it does seem reasonable to trest some of those the way unreferenced information is treated in articles in general. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP removing the content most certainly was not vandalism, and if you want content restored it is up to you to add the sources, not the editor removing the content. Also, where is this consensus that "the reporter/anchor names are standard on all TV station articles?" My understanding was that notable entries belong on such lists, to prevent it from being an indiscriminate list of unverified and non-notable names, which is what I'm seeing in the diffs (and it doesn't matter what the MoS says, wider consensus such as WP:V would supercede it; the IP would be quite correct to remove the unsourced content) - SudoGhost 01:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has stamped the discussion here [120] as resolved. I really don't want to make a crusade of this, but there's little in their contentions re: sources and notability guidelines, nor in the tone of discussion, that gibes with the policies as I've known them. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the matter is clearly not resolved, I've removed the "Resolved" tag from the WP:TVS thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I haven't looked into detail at the case, but if the WP:TVS rules suggest it's encouraged to add large amounts of unsourced content or prevent recently added unsourced content from being challenged and being removed in the absence of references, this sounds like a major violation of WP:Verifiability. It's generally accepted that wikiproject rules don't overturn well accepted policies, and it would seem this would particularly apply to a cornerstone policy like WP:V. Also I somehow doubt the wikiproject rules encourage people to label things vandalism when they aren't. And it is your problem because if you're violating policy, you're the one likely to get in trouble, potentially even if you were under the mistaken impression wikiproject rules overode cornerstone policies. To be clear, I'm not saying the revert was wrong, I haven't looked enough to say, simply noting that the edit shouldn't have been labelled vandalism, and the defence 'wikiproject rules say so' doesn't really help. In any case, I will also ask for other participants to clarify. While in many cases editors are encourage to find references to non contentious claims instead of simply tagging or deleting, it's never really requirement particularly when the info was recently added and so broad as to require significant research. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY

This isn't helpful. MBisanz talk 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Investigation by the professional detective agency: we can see this result (personal website). In the relation of him. Presumption of innocence acts (of course). - 176.15.138.84 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC). What exactly is the issue that you feel an administrator needs to address? Your post here is probably actionable as a violation of WP:OUTING -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Haha... No. That site was probably set up by the "OTRS-Beatles Content Donation" LTA-Sock who wants to be able to link copyright violations of Beatles content to Wikipedia. I have never been an Administrator, I've never met Jimbo in person, and editors in good standing may use the email feature to verify that I am not at that email address. Hasteur (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is this fellow?

Encyclopedic Joshua (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ander Crenshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This newly registered account has made massive deletions on the above two articles. I've reverted them on both. On the Rubio article he insists, and although I reverted a second time, he reverted me, and I have not reverted a third time. He also had this very odd discussion on another user's Talk page that set off red flags to cause me to come here. He suggested to the other editor creating a "new article" to replace the Occupy Wall Street article, and when properly challenged by the editor, said, "In all respect, I cannot go back to that article for lawful reasons." When questioned some more, he said, "Could you talk with the main contributors of that article to tell them I'm back and want to contribute, rightfully but only if they don't put any investigations against me again." He was also told that he might be violating WP:POVFORK, at which point he went to that page and deleted a template (since restored). My assumption from all this is he is another user come back to avoid sanctions or a block, but I'm not sure how to go about investigating this, so here I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That all suggests an intriguing past, but even without an investigation of the user's history, the persistent deletion of sourced content is problematic, and merits administrative attention on its own. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is almost admitting he is a sock, and at least one person knows who for. Posting here was a good idea, I'm betting someone else will know. Going to see if I can find who has been indef'ed from the main article lately... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the talkpage of the editor who has identifyed SP issues with the other accounts and filed the other SPIs, but he wanted to wait until the editor actually made any edits before taking any action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The name seems to align with Joshua the Patriot (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 23:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the collective memory of Wikipedians. Thanks, Calton, as well for your support in restoring the two articles he's been editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The sockmaster for Joshua is CentristFiasco. I'm still looking, if anyone feels comfortable enough for an SPI, go for it. I've given him a final warning on warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, he's got a fair number of warnings now to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• SPI filed after reviewing edit summaries [121]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like MuZemike took care of the problem[122] via WP:DUCK. Thanks to Calton for making this easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent quick work, thanks. He's been indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DrAlyLakhani's odd edits, serial reverting and lack of communication

Would someone please take a look at DrAlyLakhani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

A cursory look over his contribs will do, so not providing diffs.

He has a strange penchant for adding <small> tags in places where they are seemingly not needed (and has been reverted multiple times and explicitly warned, see most recent message on talk), adding information that doesn't seem important and has made a total of 0 talk pages edits.

He reverts without leaving edit summaries and I have had to warn him about edit warring in the past but he has never communicated on his talk page.

Looking over his talk you can see that he's been warned on numerous occasions about numerous problems, all relating to Islam. Perhaps he doesn't understand the concept of a talk page or doesn't understand that other editors (and not bots) are leaving him messages. I don't know but hopefully it can be sorted out here. Will notify user momentarily. SÆdon^talk 23:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the lack of sourcing used to justify changes he's made. I don't know anything about Islamic history (outside of a bit of commonly known stuff) and it looks as though an expert in Islam may be needed to go through and check his edits to make sure they're accurate. SÆdon^talk 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at his talk page is better than looking at his contribs. He isn't approaching 3RR, but it looks like the reverts and edits he does are problematic, and some of them have been extreme POV violations, like this. He has been warned 9 times, invited to the Tea House, and here. I don't think he can hear very well. Would like another opinion, but a block may be needed until he communicates, to prevent further POV deletions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, they've had a final warning. The next time they do it they'll be blocked. Unexplained removal of content, combined with an utter lack of communication, that's blockable. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • What made me want to consider blocking now what the types of edits, very POV. I'm not sure we want them editing at all until there has been a chance to talk to them and explain NPOV more fully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can't comment on the POV issue, I know so little about the subject, and I have trouble even understanding his edits. However, Drmies's comment seems well taken to me. He doesn't explain his edits and he doesn't respond to any of the warnings. Also, as Saedon says, he never contributes to other Talk pages, let alone his own. My guess is he's clueless about some of this stuff, but we can't make him communicate, so WP:COMPETENCE is a justification for blocking him (bad edits and no indication he'll collaborate or improve). Like Drmies, I'd wait for him to transgress the final warning. He hasn't edited for several hours. He's certainly not so destructive that there's any real urgency.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• A block for competence is about the last resort, IMO. Indeed there is no urgency right now. An editor can be blocked for being completely incommunicative, but that also is a last resort. I don't like preventative blocks (which is really what it would boil down to), and I hope that they'll see the light. If they don't, and they continue, we'll probably block. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, wait it out and see what he does when he comes back. I didn't bring this here to get a block, just to force a discussion. If he resumes we'll have to force a discussion by blocking, but I'm hoping that he will see the error of his ways and respond here tomorrow. SÆdon^talk 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think we ought to give him an unequivocal final warning. IMO, he already broke the WP:3RR on Muhammad were he was reverted over 3 times and yet he continued making unhelpful edits. So, is this leniency worth it? I mostly concur with Dennis and Bbb23 above.  Brendon ishere 07:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The user stopped reverting on Muhammad after I had left him a 3RR warning so that's moot (also stale, that was sometime last week iirc). Blocking is a measure of last resort on WP; we do it because we have to after all other avenues have been exhausted. Occasionally we will block to get an editors attention but generally in circumstances that are more extreme than these. It's easy enough to revert if he starts up again tomorrow, we have nothing to lose by waiting for him to respond. Is the leniency worth it? Yes, that almost any editor can be redeemed is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. SÆdon^talk 08:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This diff might help clear the air. User:Saedon issued a warning at 02:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC) and reverted his changes at 02:01, May 1‎ 2012 (UTC). But the user didn't stop there and didn't try to communicate. He made 5 more edits which were equally unhelpful and required another reversion. I don't understand what User:Saedon is trying to insinuate here with the word "moot". In any case he kept on making unhelpful edits to other Islamic articles.

FYI, I'm not saying we should or should not block him. I am not saying anything about the block. That's not for me to say.  Brendon ishere 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DrAlyLakhani has a set of beliefs about events in the 7th Century that he/she probably learned in a madrasah (Islamic school). It is very likely that his/her teachers could find proper sources for his/her extreme POV statements. If this user could be persuaded to provide citations to proper sources, it would make the articles better. However that should not entitle him/her to expunge the articles of the other POVs.

A permanent block probably will not work. I think this user would respond better to gradually increasing temporary blocks. As he/she edits in surges (see Special:Contributions/DrAlyLakhani) a 24 hour block would probably go unnoticed. A 7 day block would catch his/her attention though. What we want to achieve is for this user to learn how he/she needs to behave to be an effective editor.

The reason I think that a permanent block is unlikely to work, is that I suspect that he/she would perceive the permanent block as unethical, and therefore see nothing wrong with creating a new user name to get round the block.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Toddy, am I right to assume you understand the subject? If so, what's your opinion on the accuracy of his edits in general? Is this the kind of thing where we may have to consider nuking his edits or are they accurate enough to overlook until proper sources can be found? Would you call his editrs WP:FRINGE? SÆdon^talk 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The area he/she edits in is fundamental to the splitting of Islam into many sects. There are different opinions and versions of the truth held by these sects. Wikipedia should try to present objective truth (with citations), and present different points of view about that truth (with citations) and without giving undue weight to some of them.

DrAlyLakhani's edits concerning the rebellion of Hussein ibn Ali against Caliph Yazid I in 680 AD are a POV. As a POV they are valid. But they are not objective truth; and there are other POVs that are just as valid.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I concur with Toddy above. Most of the user's additions are not backed by reliable sources and unreliable. This user clearly is not here to build an encyclopaedia (complete lack of communication and indifference towards the warnings does tell us something).  Brendon ishere 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The reason I think that a permanent block is unlikely to work, is that I suspect that he/she would perceive the permanent block as unethical, and therefore see nothing wrong with creating a new user name to get round the block." - Sounds reasonable to me.

Could we perform a "duck test" as a precautionary measure without transgressing the boundaries of good-faith? The reason I say this is, that user (Dr-Aly-Lakhani) created an account on march 29(didn't edit much that day).
Then on march 30th edited over 15 times acquiring 5 general notes of caution (level 2 warnings) and 1 more serious warning about defamation (level 3). Then the next day didn't edit much. On April 5th made 8 edits, all of which were unsourced but got no warnings.
Thereafter, he made 17-18 edits from 20:57, April 8 to 07:08, April 9 most of which were without the backing of reliable sources and were subsequently removed or remained unnoticed. However, he was not warned. Then he didn't make any changes on wikipedia in the weeks that followed.

Then again, out of the blue made he edited 130+ times (including several reversal of legitimate edits and inclusion of unsourced content, POV-statements, etc) from 21:29, April 30 to 19:56, May 1, due to which he received multiple serious warnings (I issued one "final warning" after studying his modus operandi, but that was later removed by User:Saedon, perhaps it's because he thought Aly's contributions were not deliberate, as he told me on my talk page).  Brendon ishere 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that screams sock yet, so that might be considered fishing at this stage. I did notice the odd editing pattern, but have yet to connect any dots there. The edits he has made are POV, and what makes them NPOV violations is that they were unsourced or he has removed different viewpoints wholesale. He may be doing this with the best of faith and in accordance to his beliefs but it is still disruptive and non-neutral in nature. Some days, yes, he is capable of making a great number of edits, which makes it more problematic. I would disagree with Drmies in part, as preventing disruption (be it vandalism, NPOV or otherwise) is a proper use of short term blocks, with the only question being: "has this person passed the threshold which requires we do". I think they are right on the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMPETENCE — At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to malevolent intention or incompetence. We ought not to spend much time trying to figure this out, because many of our trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. I think the whole point is that the user is either incapable of recognizing his own incompetence when pointed out to him (through several warnings), or is incapable of changing his disruptive behavior. So, WP:COMPETENCE can be a valid reason for blocking him at this point. One cannot let it go on forever. If he responds to the warnings and changes his behavior then fine, although I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Sooner or later it has to stop.

Primary rationale for blocking users from editing is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, disruption to Wikipedia.
A longer block may be justifiable as a deterrence to stem the likelihood of repetition of similar behavior in near future. But, whether the admins should block him now or wait for more evidence of disruptive behavior? I don't know.  Brendon ishere 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Shoot him now! Shoot him now! Equazcion ^(talk) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Brendon, even though you've only been here a month and a half (at least with this registered account) you should know that we don't shoot on sight, and we typically don't extrapolate to the point where we find a good reason to block as quickly as we can. "A longer block may be justifiable as a deterrence..."--no. "Let me block you for a long time now so you won't do it again"--that doesn't make any sense, and if I were blocked and given that rationale, I'd start socking on principle. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

“you should know that we don't shoot on sight” - I am not the one who wrote, “Shoot him now! Shoot him now!”
“.."A longer block may be justifiable as a deterrence..."--no” - I humbly disagree. Don't get me wrong, I adhere to the view that blocks are not punitive, but it's equally true that they can be used to deter disruption.
You know better than me that blocks are preventive in nature and they can be used to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior. At least that's what blocking policy says.

And also, you're the one who earlier said, “unexplained removal of content, combined with an utter lack of communication, that's blockable” and I agreed (I must have misunderstood you somewhere, I realize now).
“"Let me block you for a long time now so you won't do it again"--that doesn't make any sense” — Where exactly did I say, "block him for a long time now so he won't do it again"? Where did I ask anybody to block him at all? I said that blocking may be justifiable as a deterrence and I simply paraphrased what you said earlier.
Wasn't I clear enough when I wrote, "whether the admins should block him now or wait for more evidence of disruptive behavior? I don't know". I wrote I don't know whether he should be blocked now or later. Besides, I almost quoted what blocking policy says. So, pardon me if am a bit astonished by your abrupt change of attitude, albeit I respect your views.  Brendon ishere 17:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think if you follow the link that Equazcion provided, you will find he was being facetious. Admittedly, his comment made me both wince and smile at the same time. I think we all are talking different shades of grey here, and just express it differently. Best to just wait and see what User:DrAlyLakhani does next. Hopefully, he will come here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What he as done next is to carry on regardless, reverting, introducing POV and his beloved small type. If you are going to do something, please do it.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the line, “The shrine of Hasan's tomb was destroyed by 20th century extremist Salafi Saudis.” will qualify as an abjectly gratuitous POV claim. BTW, Aly added the word "extremist". Is this not a proof of more disruptive behavior? Or, should we wait for more? He also reverted saedon's last change to the article Muhammad al-Mahdi with the description, “Saedon [..] explains the picture, and fancies up the quote format. His name is Muhammad, and title Mahdi. Also this format now matches exactly with other imams' pages”. He had previously removed the whole section about "Ahmadiyya view" without explanation (which were later restored by User:Saedon) and he repeated that same thing with this reversion.  Brendon ishere 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

IP Acting Very Strange.

User_talk:24.112.202.78 Has been making a large number of votes in various deletion debates. These votes are all worded in a way that fails to assume good faith and a good portion of them are confrontational in nature [123] I would list them all here but there are numorus and easy to see in the user contributions. After I pointed out how stranges this Ips behaviour is it appears that the IP is now stalking me, voting in this AFD [124] after pointing out that a Sockpupet investigaton was being asked for on this IP [125] The IP then left this sockpupet meesage about me on what seems to be a random IP talk page [126]. This IP appears to have no other motivation then to cause disruption and get attention. Here is the message they left on user Reyk talk page in repsose to the sockpupet investigation [127] and the wonderful message they left on their own talk page [128]. Have no clue what is going on here but it seems to not have the best interests of the project at heart. Ridernyc (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

that tp comment does not seem typical of the suggested sockmaster. But it by itself would be cause for a block if it repeats. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP has now moved on to vandalizing my talk page with warning templates. Ridernyc (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I observe a common thread in the history of the contributions. A thread of "keep everything MMA based at the status quo" appears to be present. Write it off to yet another MMA enthusiast who would burn the entire encyclopedia to the ground in retaliation for the MMA articles being removed (ergo their "delete all concepts of notability" comment). Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) and I have been somewhat tempered over the Bradley/Breanna Manning issue at the moment; I made a comment on Talk:Bradley Manning that a person who ignores a reliable source that Manning identified as female was either "dense or bigoted", which has inflamed tempers to the point that he has made this comment towards me. It's a severe personal attack, and would be blockable even without his prior comments leading to the "only warning". Sceptre ^(talk) 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Andy calling you a turd is wrong. You trolling him on his own talk page and then running to ANI so you can win a content dispute is also wrong. Both of you should start acting like adults. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  After being warned not to make personal attacks, and then making such a blistering personal attack, going to ANI is the next step since the closure of the personal attack noticeboard years ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Block everyone. -— Isarra ༆ 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  (ec)I notice that the personal attack warning was from you, that you jumped straight to the final warning, and that everyone else who has commented on Andy's talk page regarding that has defended him. You should both settle your differences without name-calling or running to mommy. If you can't or won't do that, then I back Isarra's recommendation. Reyk _YO! 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • • Given that his conduct was close to harassment, given that he was publicly attacking me in several forums where several other people were constructively discussing the issue, and given that he was blocked six months ago for making this comment, a block is indeed warranted. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at your (Sceptre) chutzpah. I am the editor that Sceptre called "dense or bigoted". I asked him to retract it, and he didn't retract or respond. Two admins asked him to retract, and he didn't retract or respond. And yet here he is complaining about Andy calling him a bigot. It's just a bit much. As far as I'm concerned, Sceptre has been on a rampage about the Manning article and gender identity such that anyone who disagrees with him has to be stupid, bigoted, or god knows what else. Oh, and by the way, last time I checked, WP:WQA was alive and kicking, although he may be referring to some other board of which I'm unaware.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• What Bbb said. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That I may have attacked you -- and I retract the comment as referred to you -- does not have any bearing on the fact of Andy's egregious personal attack. There is no doctrine of unclean hands on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, there is a concept of unclean hands on Wikipedia, and particularly on this board. Also, although I will accept your retraction, I note that it comes very late and probably only so you can move on with your report on Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This all started when Sceptre decided to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning's gender identity in the article, against prior consensus, and based on a selective reading of reports of private conversations Manning had. At no point has Manning publicly stated that he wishes to be known as a 'she', named 'Breanna'. Sceptre is pushing a POV, and using a vulnerable person in no position to respond to do so. When asked to desist, and conform to policy, Sceptre has instead responded by accusations of 'bigotry', 'transphobia' and who knows what else. If he has the gall to make further personal attacks on me on my talk page under a posting that refers explicitly to WP:NPA that Sceptre posted, I can see no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't respond in kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's comments during this protracted Manning battle have been, not surprisingly, incisive. They have also been remarkably sensitive to Manning. That said, words like "turd" and "bigot" (I'm assuming he said them, I haven't verified it) shouldn't be used, even when strongly provoked. Although I suppose I'm somewhat biased, Sceptre still had no business coming here. He's done nothing but provoke from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensitive or insensitive? I don't think it's sensitive to repeatedly and deliberately refer to someone who (privately, mind, but still) said they didn't want to be remembered as male. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

...and currently refers to himself as 'a boy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Source? There's no way that you can read the Lamo logs and can come away with a perspective that Manning was comfortable with being male. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not being "comfortable with being male" isn't the same thing as wishing to be publicly identified as a female named 'Breanna'. Manning clearly wasn't comfortable about a lot of things - and I've seen no evidence that he is comfortable with being used as a convenient fall-guy/gal for your POV-pushing antics. If Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female, he can say so - until then it isn't Wikipedia's job to arbitrarily 'gender reassign' him on the basis of a selective reading of his private conversations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede on the name issue, but not on the gender issue: in her chats with Lamo, she talks about how she was uncomfortable with her male body, about her presenting as female while on leave in Boston, and her plans to transition upon discharge. In the New York source, her counsellor talks about the fact that she was "very solid" on feeling female. We use both thing as sources in the article; if they're admissible in the article to source the facts as currently presented in "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge", then they're admissible as confirmation to her gender identity. It's not a "arbitrary" change at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are 'willing to concede' or not is irrelevant. You are engaging in soapboxing and POV-pushing to assign an gender identity to Manning that he has not publicly identified with - that is what 'identity' means - and no, the fact that we consider a source as reliable for one thing doesn't make it reliable for every ridiculous bit of spin you can put on it to support something else entirely. You have no right whatsoever to use Wikipedia as a platform for your POPV-pushing nonsense. Bradley Manning will remain Bradley manning until he publicly asserts otherwise, regardless of your bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

She's already been "outed", and we reflect that in the section "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge"; I'd like to hear your reason why the sources are okay to source the fact that she "feels female" and was going to transition, but not okay to change the gender. And no, that isn't what "identity" means, unless you're saying all the closeted LGBT people aren't really LGBT; you're still gay even if you're still in the closet. If she weren't arrested, Manning would have been discharged, and intended to start the transition process. She was fully aware that she was probably going to get arrested, and expressed fears about being described as male. (see: the Lamo caht logs) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet more of the same bullshit. You are in no position to make any such assertions. And no, we shouldn't be using the source cited to state that Manning "feels female" - we don't. We write that he apparently wrote this to an unnamed gender counselor in 2009: and the same source: and this same counselor repeatedly refers to Manning as 'he', and makes clear that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state not just because of his uncertainties over gender, but because of his direct involvement in military actions which were leading to the deaths of innocent civilians. Manning was in crisis, and as the Lamo logs make clear, unsure of his own mental stability: The very next statement he makes after his comment that "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy" he says "i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ..." Any credible reading of these comments can only conclude that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state (and incidentally, still describing himself as 'a boy') - this isn't an assertion that he wishes to change his public gender identity. It isn't an assertion of anything, except his own mental state - which he seems to have been well aware of as being confused, and conflicted. To take such comments from the isolated private conversations of a disturbed individual as 'evidence' that Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female is not only 'original research' engaged in to promote a particular POV, but morally reprehensible, and utterly incompatible with the sexual politics you claim to espouse. You have no right whatsoever to cherry-pick sources to 'reassign' Manning, and that you chose to do so suggests that your own motivations are questionable, to say the least. One final point - more comments by Manning from the Lamo logs [129]: "8 months ago, if you’d have asked me whether i wanted i would identify as female, i’d say you were crazy", "that started to slip very quickly, as the stresses continued and piled up", "i had about three breakdowns… successively worse, each one revealing more and more of my uncertainty and emotional insecurity". Not only is Manning stating that he is having a breakdown, but he says that 8 months earlier he had no thoughts of identifying as female at all. If you are going to pick cherries, it is sensible to see what else is in the tree... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're treading close to saying that trans people with mental illnesses aren't sure of their gender identity, which is also offensive. And Manning did wish to be publicly female; she did appear so while on leave in Boston. (And gender identity is fluid; we don't have a source saying she self-identified as male after May 2010, understandable as she's still under arrest awaiting trial, so we use the most recent self-identification, which is female). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

JaParker Jones, Agnes Torres Sulca, Paige Clay, and Brandy Martell didn't make public statements to the media about their gender identity either, but we refer to all four of them as transgender women. In any case, regardless of conduct, you should know better than to refer to someone as a "moronic little turd" when a) you've been blocked for personal attacks in the past and b) you were warned not to make personal attacks. (Also, nice appeal to emotion there) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead people rarely make public statements. Nice appeal to emotion there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that a trans person needs to make a public statement to the media to be recognised as such, then we should refer to Jones, Sulca, Clay, Martell as men. As it is, all four and Manning identified as female (which is all we need under MOS:IDENTITY), and presented as female when she could. Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female (see the Lamo chat logs), like the other four. This is a digression, mind. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A digression from being boomeranged, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female". Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. What we do know is that at the moment Manning has neither done so, nor made any public statement that such a 'transition' is desired. Since when has it been morally justifiable to 'out' people as transgendered based on a POV-pushing reading of cherry-picked sources? Please put the crystal ball away, come down from the soapbox, and explain how you know what 'would' have happened, and why your knowledge of this should be seen a a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How about everyone here calm down and just chill. I'm always amazed that in working on articles on living people, the people who work the hardest to enforce it (see Point 6) by saying we're not allowed to hold, or god forbid express on occasion, negative opinions on anyone are the same people who are often the source of a great deal of incivility towards other editors. I'm not blaming anyone in particular in this instance, as I think blocks can be avoided if everyone here does what I'm doing now; kicking back with a Tiger beer watching a program on Billy Martin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would never mention something like this, ever, but the parallels are so very extreme, because yes, there is not so much 'just' insults and personal attacks going on, but insults and personal attacks that should be framed on the NPA page as what not to do. But that said, this is precisely the embodiment of the term 'consenting adults' and Sceptre, you need to look a lot less like someone turning up at a hospital in a bondage outfit saying your injuries are entirely someone else's fault. Because the parallels to things like this (DO NOT LOOK) explicit text content are just going to keep people laughing at the situation, tragic but true, because if you don't dress up in leather and ask to be spanked he will leave you alone, problem solved.

Further the 'only solution is to ban the lot of you' idea, whilst it is quite valid, is also going to be a drawn out process if it has any chance of success at all, not just because Andy is only defensive by nature, but because with God as my witness everyone wants to see what happens next, there are some things that you just can't look away from, and this is one of those things. Everyone with a remote control to switch off the TV has slow if not paralysed hands right now. Penyulap ☏ 09:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks to me like a BLP violation. If this Manning weren't under arrest for espionage, he would have no notability at all. As it is, it looks like an editor is trying to make some implicit connection between his alleged gender identity and his alleged espionage - either trying to justify it, or to smear the subject. Either way, it's not good, and Andy the Gump's response, while somewhat over the top, is understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block of Sceptre for this page move, and if that's not enough, edit-warring to repeat it a quarter hour later. Small tadpole to AtG for rising to a pretty obvious bait. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The OP's complaint does not square with his user page philosophy, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Boomerang block of Sceptre. Andy's position has rectitude even if his barbs are too quickly thrown. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Block Sceptre and consider topic banning. Going against consensus, gaming the system, and refusal to get the point. At this point, his involvement is disruptive as he is here admittedly as an advocate with an agenda.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I removed the unproductive thread and personal attacks from Andy's talk page, and advised the parties to seek dispute resolution. Andy restored them (contrary to policy). Both parties need to realize that not only is this unproductive, but that the other party is acting in good faith over the content - however strange their positions may seem to each other. The personal attacks should be removed, the parties go their separate ways or to DR. This type of thing brings the project into disrepute. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
  

Alan Liefting and semi-automated edits

I would appreciate some assistance here. User:Alan Liefting has started recategorizing animal rights articles without discussion. He is removing articles from one to another, creating a new cat, removing pages from existing cats, and adding others. He's using AWB and Hotcat.

I've asked him to stop and explain (see discussion here), as some of the distinctions he is making make no sense to me. They might make sense if he would explain, but he won't. One red flag is that he said there is a "subtle" difference between animal rights and animal welfare groups. But there is a significant difference between these groups. Therefore, if he continues, there's a chance he will start categorizing groups together inappropriately, and because of the speed of his edits, undoing them would cause a significant amount of work.

Alan says he plans to continue without discussion. I have seen similar complaints about his category work before. Can anything be done about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've also asked him to stop and explain here. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have two main concerns. First, there is a big difference between animal welfare (AW) and animal rights (AR) advocacy, which Alan indicates he doesn't recognize. The distinction has narrowed over the last 10 years, and will continue to narrow in my opinion, but in the view of some groups and individuals it's still a stark distinction. BLP kicks in because people don't like to be labelled incorrectly -- I've had several emails from AW people over the years asking to be removed from an AR category or template.

Secondly, the AR movement consists of established organizations (e.g. the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), as well as amorphous groupings set up for one specific campaign (e.g. SHAC), and then leaderless resistance movements (e.g. the Animal Liberation Front), which are not "groups" in any meaningful sense. To avoid confusion, I created an Animal rights movement category, so that editors not familiar with the differences don't have to worry about them. Alan wants to split this category into "organizations" on the one hand, and something else (he won't say what) on the other.

I'm not totally resistant to change, but I'd like to make sure that whoever carries it out knows something about the movement, so they can spot the pitfalls, and that requires discussion before making the changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please credit me with at least a little intelligence in being able to distinguish between an organisation and something else. You will note that I am only moving the organisations to the category that I created. And I said nothing about creating any other category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You categorized Safe Humane Chicago as an AR group though there's no indication that they are, and their use of the word "humane" suggests they're an animal welfare group. You categorized the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as an AR group, which they're not; they have AR sympathies, but several of the senior members don't see themselves as AR, and AR is not their primary focus. Then there are the rallying cries sometimes used by one section of the AR movement – such as Oxford Arson Squad and Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade. These aren't organizations in any meaningful sense, but you've moved them into that cat. Those are just a few examples of the problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I find this all very ridiculous and very frustrating. I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of mu edits to SlimVirgin. I did not say that I plan to continue without discussion. And, I am yet to be told why my edits are contentious. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of my edits to SlimVirgin". I read what you wrote on your talk page, and it was not clear to me. Perhaps you could be more specific? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoeSperrazza and Slim Virgin, I read the talk page and did not see any clear rationale for what you're doing. I have, at this time, no opinion about your actions one way or the other, but that's partly because you really haven't explained yourself adequately and, specifically, you have not answered Slim Virgin's reasonable questions. You should address those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Communication should be better, yes. I understand that it might make sense that there be a category on organizations (and the response to that would be a terse 'why not') but there are questions of scope that need to be hashed out and editors must discuss those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is above such mere trifles as policy and consensus. This issue arises regularly and his behaviour is an infallibly unperturbed as we might expect from such an Olympian presence. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also of concern is this - tagging an article with 3 sources as 'BLPPROD'. GiantSnowman 11:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of editors make that mistake, as long as he doesn't keep repeating it, then there shouldn't be a problem. More worrying is AfD nominations like this. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Commons Admin available to undelete or move a deleted image to en?

The file University_of_New_Mexico_Seal.png was recently deleted from Commons. It was a reasonable deletion because fair use images don't belong in Commons and the image should have never been uploaded there. However, the image does qualify to be used here. So can a friendly Commons admin help me move the image to en so it can be restored to the infobox University of New Mexico?

And to preempt some potential questions: I have not asked the admin - Fastily - who performed the deletion as (a) he or she has retired from en and (b) I have previously asked him or her to help in an identical situation and received not help but a snippy reply. I have not notified him or her of this discussion because he or she is retired from en. And I would have gladly taken action on this earlier if I had known that this problem existed but there was no warning here in en that there was a problem with this image and it was about to be deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, you could also make this request at Commons:COM:AN; most English-speaking admins at Commons likely have autoconfirmed en:wp accounts and would be able to upload an image over here. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Frivolous "account audits" by StephanieGuilletz

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

Resolved

 – user blocked, page protected, threatening edit sumarries deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This user has been posting notices like this. I'm pretty sure that this constitutes harassment and I'm requesting a block of this user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Strange. Does anyone know which drawer this sock came from? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. can you imagine if this bot really existed. I'll bet Dr Blofeld editing ability would fry its programming in the first 3 minutes. Thanks for ending this quickly Drmies. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

this appears to be related to an attack on the BLP article Daniel S. Loeb Could someone please watch & semi-protect if necessary--I can't, since I edited it substantially. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That explains the fake bot message to you and C.Fred but how did Zhou Yu gore her ox? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Zhou Yu reverted their edit to C.Fred's talk page and left a warning on their talk page. How dare you! seems to have ensued.... --64.85.216.47 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Stalkery weird user with one contribution

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

---

Resolved

 – obvious troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'llBeWatching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account seems to have been created with the specific intent to harass User:Prioryman. Recommend that you check to see if its a sock and block the user. Has only one contribution so far and sounded like cryptic harassment. -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This board ain't fer fishin'. This is barely an AIV report. How is this worthy of an AN/I thread? Doc talk 07:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is worthy of AN/I per the instruction at the top: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Not sure what you mean, if a person creates essentially a throw away account, where else do you bring it if not to the attention of administrators? -- Avanu (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here then. I'd have gone to Prioryman's talk page first, rather than directly here, personally. Done a little research with them, you know, to possibly determine whose sock it might be. Then, maybe SPI. But, suit yourself. Doc talk 07:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no research to do. The 1 edit done by User:I'llBeWatching is very questionable, and in light of the recent AN/I involving Delicious Carbuncle, it seems to be some kind of provocational edit intended to simply cause more problems. The content of the edit, along with the choice of username indicate a problem user. Not sure what kind of research is needed to figure that much out. Whether they're a sock is yet to be determined, but the idea that they're not here for the right reasons is obvious. -- Avanu (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I have a pretty good idea of who's behind it, too (a banned user - see your email, Avanu). It will probably turn out to be a proxy IP but I suggest a checkuser run to find out if there are any other accounts lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't keep us in suspense! If it's a banned user, speak up! We're bypassing SPI entirely, based on one edit, so a CU should magically pop in and solve this one momentarily. Why wait for weeks at SPI, with bothersome things like "evidence" and "other accounts" to present? I won't make that mistake again, I can tell you. Doc talk 08:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases like this where there is something immediately suspicious, checkuser may be used without a known sockmaster per WP:NOTFISHING. I've seen it done before, though I can't remember when (I think it was with User:SadSwanSong, but I may be wrong). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You sound just a bit sassy, Doc. I don't care if or who's sock it is. It doesn't really matter. It's called harassment, and since they come in on their first edit being a stalker, they're probably a sock. Duh. What's the "wait for weeks" thing about? You seem to be acting like some bureaucratic approach should trump common sense. If you have a preferred approach just mention it. No one is *demanding* anything, but if the advertisement at the top of the page is correct, this is the place to bring a concern for admins. If that is wrong or something else is wrong, don't be a snarky douche about it, just speak up in plain English and explain the problem that you've got with it. -- Avanu (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Snarky douche". Nice. Why is the account not blocked already? Why is this thread still here?!? Doc talk 09:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering that myself, actually - it's obvious that the account user is up to no good so it shouldn't be a difficult call, surely? Prioryman (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Stripping wikilinks to dab pages?

Is it considered acceptable editing for an editor to make a bulk run across wls to dab pages, and rather than disambiguating these links, simply removing them? In this case it's to terms that are "so simple" there is no more specific article, but the dab page itself has a sentence that's broadly adequate. This is in particular reference to Bazonka (talk · contribs), where I noticed this as Oscillating turret - he's removed it twice already. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This should really have been raised at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, not the Admin noticeboard. Anyway, links should not normally point to disambiguation pages. I was undertaking a WP:DPL cleanup, amending links to the Flank dab page. The first definition on this dab page is "the side of either a horse or a military unit" - a meaning that does not have (or deserve) its own article; therefore links to it cannot be disambiguated. This is the meaning of flank used in Oscillating turret. Because no article for this meaning exists, I simply removed the link. I have now replaced it with a link to the Wiktionary definition of flank instead. Bazonka (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the concept is so simple it doesn't have an article even though it has a dab page for related stuff, then the links probably fail WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking plain English words"), so removal seems quite adequate to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Plain English words don't generally appear in dab pages at all. The term here is "flank", in the specific military sense. That's more than a "plain English" term, and quite a suitable subject for an encyclopedic article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In what way is the wiktionary link (a whole range of terms) better than even the dab page link? This dab page included a clearer definition of "flank", in this context, than the wikt page, and it listed it first as the most significant as-yet un-articled definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DPL, particularly point 8 in the "How to help" section. If you are not happy with this, then perhaps you should create a new article entitled Flank (military) or similar. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the fullness of time, Flank (military) is the appropriate action - but that's not going to happen today. In the meantime, given that this is an appropriate topic (i.e. unlinking in inappropriate, and wiktionary is no better than the current one-line note on the existing dab page) then this link should be preserved as going to the dab page. This is better than a redlink, even a redlink to a better article name. This is better than no link - the article still benefits from some expansion of the term.

The real problem with stripping wls from articles is that it damages the web of articles. It's easy in the future to create Flank (military). It's pretty easy to disambig in the future and find that there is now a good article target to disambiguate to. What would be really difficult would be to take the set of articles that have been link-stripped in the past, and then (once the good target becomes available) magically recover the list of candidate link articles - MediaWiki has no way to recover these. This is why the stripping of appropriate links, even when they're to disambig pages, is harmful. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Flanking maneuver and/or its redirect, Flanking? Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Andy, You should raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation - AN/I is not the appropriate forum. I understand your point, but currently red links or no links are the only acceptable options.

@Nyttend, I think flank in the sense used in Oscillating turret simply means the edge of the military unit, whereas Flanking maneuver is an attack on the flank. Not quite the same thing, but perhaps they can be combined into one article somehow. I'm not actually convinced that Flank (military) would meet WP:N, but then I'm no expert in this area. Bazonka (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Third link in Flanking is to flank. If Bazonka thinks that Flank (military) is non-notable, then I'm sure that Flanking would fail even more obviously, as a mere subset of the term's use. Try that at AfD and see how far it gets.

This is not about flanks though, it's about the eroding effect on a web of already linked pages by applying an over-simplistic policy. The policy might belong at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but bulk damage belongs at WP:ANI. This is at most a trivial "improvement" to un-disambiguate a term like "flank", so why is it allowed to erode the web of page links like this?

I'd also note that in one of these edits (a toad or frog) the linked term "flank" was simply replaced by the unlinked "side". Now that might be an appropriate edit, it's certainly a simplification, but when editors do these large-scale auto-runs of edits, the trouble is that they end up editing outside their areas of expertise. Is "side" an appropriate synonym for "flank" when applied to toads? When applied to horses? (I've heard "flank" used many times in relation to horses or cattle, but never their "side"s). If such a simplification, because the term "would[n't] meet WP:N" and is merely "plain English", was applied to the military context, that would certainly be incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Andy, if you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, then you should discuss it at the relevant policy page (in this case WT:D). If you have a problem with a particular editor, then you discuss on their talk page, and then bring it here if necessary. In this case the "bulk damage" as you call it is happening because I am following policy. I do not appreciate your implication (by raising it here without even attempting to discuss with me first) that I am wilfully damaging Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss it in any case. Bazonka (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• "red links or no links are the only acceptable options." - i.e. disambig pages mustn't be linked to.

I'll just leave that here. It's sheer dogmatic nonsense, the triumph of policy over utility. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bazonka — notability isn't applicable to redirects. Links to disambiguation pages are almost never helpful; they're useful in hatnotes and when we're trying to provide a list of other topics — e.g. a lot of Ohio township articles link to disambiguation pages to provide links to townships with similar names. However, this type of link appears useless in my mind. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend - we do not link to dab pages. The best possible solution would seem to be to link to Flank (military), and to create a stub article to stop it being a red link. But only if Flank (military) is notable enough to be a stand-alone article, and not just a dictionary definition (like I said, I am no expert, so there may be much more to flanks in the military sense). Flanking maneuver a.k.a. Flanking is certainly notable as this is a description of a technique of military tactics - much more than just a dictionary definition. Bazonka (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire under control of school?

Not sure of the history of this article but as it currently stands, it *appears* (and I'll let others use their own judgement about that) that there is a concerted effort to stage-manage the article. There are concerns about the sources used in the article (user-generated reviews are being used to suggest it is one of the best in the country) but any attempt to add tags to indicate there is a current discussion about sources at RSN are pretty much immediately reverted in an attempt to make it appear there is no discussion about the matter. Some more eyes would be helpful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The best place to request protection is WP:RFPP. However, this page works for protection requests, so I've semiprotected in hopes that things will calm down. Please note that semiprotection is indefinite; the potential that the school is attempting to whitewash the article means that it may need more than a week or so of semiprotection, and I'm not familiar enough with the article to know how long is needed. As I said in the protection log, admins should unprotect (or set an ending time for protection, or whatever else they believe sufficient) whenever they believe it beneficial. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi-protect. Much of the abuse seemed to be coming from IP users. I've documented one specific incident here[130]. At least one IP editor seems to have been manipulating the media via a contact in The Grocer (a trade-publication for the British food retail industry) and then making changes to the article reflecting the news that s/he has just created. I strongly suspect that this article has been created entirely for promotional purposes. The initial editors were either SPAs or individuals who were known to be linked to the school[131] (for example Tom Tolkein has been listed as a member of it's faculty[132]). The history of the article is an extraordinary record of COI, blocked-users and revert wars. Recent edits have attempted to 'bulk-up' the article with the addition of trivia links apparently with the intent to help the article survive an AFD discussion. I'm probably too "involved" with this article to be entirely neutral so I'd appreciate the involvement of any editors who'd be willing to assess this article for notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say, the current version looks pretty good. I haven't looked at all the sources, but the few I did look at aren't bad at all. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I urge all interested parties to read and review Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire#Two_issues_now_at_the_Reliable_sources_noticeboard, especially the article protection that has been executed in violation and contrary to protection policy. It's quite mystifying that Nyttend, a veteran administrator, would fail to employ the measures as directed by policy. Why is he protecting articles contrary to policy? 134.241.58.240 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued edit warring by Martinvl

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

Metrication of British transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite being warned here and despite being reported for continuing with the edit warring here (which has not yet been actioned) user Martinvl has continued his warring on Metrication of British transport here. He even removed a "notability" flag from the article whilst the question of notability is still under discussion on the article talk page, and made absurd accusations. Please block him so we can continue to edit without his constant tendentious behaviour. 94.197.n1.n2 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In view of this recent developements, I have blocked User:94.197.n1.n2 as a sock of banned User:DeFacto. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See also #Edit warring at Metrication of British Transport involing a possible banned user, above. Kahastok talk 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User Salimfadhley - personal attack

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

---

I believe this is a grossly uncivil and personal attack . [[133]] I request that an admin redacts all instances of this and that the user does not repeat the behaviour. I have already stated to this individual that I have no connection to the school yet he persists with this line of attack. isfutile:P (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm nipping this in the bud right now. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

False accusations at Editwarring noticeboard

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

---

• Edit warring noticeboard discussion

On the edit warring noticeboard, Masem is being intentionally misleading to try and claim a 3RR violation which did not happen.

He claims that me reverting myself counts towards it, gives a false revision being reverted to, and Ridernyc claims that me setting out the changes for discussion on the talk page is an edit of the policy page.

I find this lying and misrepresentation morally repugnant. And people wonder why Wikipedia loses editors, when someone lies on the edit warring noticeboard about me, and the only admin response is "let's ignore the lying about you, and discuss what you're going to do to collaborate with the people lying about you.86.** IP (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ridernyc, he made a simple mistake and has already admitted so [134]. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's equally repugnant that someone runs right to ANI to get it fixed, rather than discuss with the user - especially when, after all, they have admitted their error. (Don't forget, however, that you don' tneed to break 3RR to edit war :-) ) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked Masem, both there and on his talk page, to fix his errors. This was a last straw. 86.** IP (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This was his original reply [135]. Boomerang anyone? Ridernyc (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroo court at edit warring - not a problem. Me getting upset at being subjected to a kangaroo court? Oh, ehell, yes, that's a problem. 86.** IP (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOOMERANG Ridernyc (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The revision history of the page does seem to paint an edit warring sort of picture. Your explanation that the page just doesn't follow policy isn't a good excuse for reverting several other editors. I'm uninvolved at that page and basically don't know anyone here, FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm about ready to block 86.* for his bold, large, incivility on that page. Hey, you got pegged for possible edit-warring - starting off your defence by "it's a lie" is not the way to do it. Escalating to calling people "misleading" is worse. The investigating admin(s) will do their due diligence ... have some WP:AGF - in fact, the louder you argue that you DIDN'T do it, the deeper I look to see that yes, it looks like you DID. You need to sign off for a few hours, really (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The tone of 86.**'s comments in the AN3 and here at ANI don't put him in a good light. I'm not averse to a compromise solution but I see no compromise coming from 86.**. Rather than lock down an important MOS page, I think a block of the person who won't negotiate properly is a better option. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to have moved on to more then just the edit war. I'll take this time to point out that this editor has a long history of arguing. It's hard to tell though becaused this user removes anything negative from their talk page regularly, [136], even this for a very similar incident [137]. There appears to be a very long pattern happening here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban requested for McKhan

user:McKhan is a single purpose account who for years used sockpuppets and IP's to edit war on articles relating to the Al-Ahbash group. Since 3 May 2007 he used socks and IP's to edit war to his preferred version on Abdullah al-Harari. Since 25 August 2005‎ he did the same on the Al-Ahbash article. He is violently opposed to them as can be seen with this comment he made after being blocked for one week for sockpuppetry[138] He is back from his block and is flooding the Al-Ahbash talk page with wallsotext[139], his attitude towards this group are venomous to say the least. I am quite sure the term "Habashies" is derogatory. This editor needs to be topic banned from any article dealing with Al-Ahbash given his attitude towards them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - After the block expired the editor hasn't edited the Al-Ahbash further, instead discussing it on the talk page, despite the fact that they disagree with the content currently in the article; I think this alone is a huge improvement from the pre-block behavior. Although the editor's comments have been a bit wordy, I think if the editor refrains from copying the entire blocks of article content into the talk page every time they refer to something in the article it would greatly reduce the size of their comments. I don't think any of their actions since their block has expired have been particularly disruptive in any way, and from assessing this set of edits, I'd have to oppose a topic ban right now. - SudoGhost 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky

User:Beyond My Ken is making a small but obviousy misplaced change to Reach for the Sky. He reacts to my reversal (including an explanation) with active attempts to prevent a discussion by repeatedly erasing the pertinent section on the talk page. Please make him join the discussion. Thanks. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)