Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Wikipedian detained by campus police for taking pictures

Template:Image I was taking pictures of buildings of a two-year public college in New Jersey called Union County College (UCC) when I was detained by campus security for a half an hour. Most pictures were of buildings, classrooms, plaques on walls, an empty gym. I was going to add them to the UCC article. Two pictures had students (all over 18 yrs old) in it (but I got their email addresses and permission to use their photos). Campus security said: no pictures. Officer John Britton took my drivers' license for information. He only told me his name; he wouldn't show any ID or badge. I got the impression that if I kept taking pictures they would either forcibly remove me from campus or arrest me. They didn't take my camera. About student pictures, I am not sure what the overall rules or legality is, so I won't post pictures of students. But buildings? Empty classrooms? Paid for out of taxpayer dollars? A public two-year community college in New Jersey? Sheesh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm wondering how to do this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not really think this is an issue that theEnglish Wikipedia can handle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they have the legal right to, that rarely stops cops from detaining people over taking pictures. Sorry, just the mistrustful of government cynic in me showing through. As to ArbCom, all the information is on this page, where you can find info on contacting them on-wiki, opening a case, and even contains some of their personal e-mails. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to get any relief from ArbCom on this one. NW (Talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you get your drivers license back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you remind them that its a public school?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Copping an attitude with cops is typically not the best approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not me, I'd give them attitude. As long as I know that I'm not breaking any laws, I would give them as much grief as lawfully possible. Most likely they know that they can't do anything to you, but will go as far as they think they can go, before going too far.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your funeral, as they say. :) My philosophy is to never argue with somebody with a gun and/or club attached to their belt. :) In the case of these cops, my guess is that they are under orders to disallow picture taking, and they might not be at liberty to say why. But if a cop told me, "No pictures", I wouldn't launch into some spiel about civil rights or something. I would simply act surprised (or maybe I wouldn't have to "act") and then ask, "Really? Why?" and they'll either tell you why or they won't. If they won't, then a call to the administrative office might clear it up. But as I've found out from past experience, you'll get a lot better karma with cops if you treat them like folks with a job to do, and act friendly and cooperative toward them, than if you treat them as adversaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not much we can do here. Be honest with them and they shouldn't give you trouble. They're just ensuring the security of campus. Tell them what you're up to and unless you caught him before his coffee and donut you'll be okay. N419BH 01:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the New York City area, where there is probably still some terrorist-threat mentality. And who knows what kinds of incidents they've had that may have impelled them to disallow picture taking. Howeover, what Tom ought to do is contact the administration and ask for permission to take snapshots. Get something in writing and hand it to the cops if they bug you again. Above all, be friendly and courteous to the cops. Don't do anything that they will see as impeding their ability to do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for advice. Yes got Drivers license back. Basically not much to do, but be polite, etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that being paid for by tax dollars doesn't mean what it sounds like. The jail is paid for by tax dollars, but you can't just wander in it and start taking pics, right? Drive around taking pictures of the fence that tax dollars put around the airport and there is a fair chance you'll be questioned. In the future, maybe get in touch with the administration (or maybe the computer science dept) and get someone to tell you it's all cool. It could save time in the end. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So, no student at the school has ever used a cell phone to take of a photo of the place, even if only as incidental background to the usual teenage snaps? Silly policing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he wants more photos he should call the school's administrative office and ask what the deal is. Some of us would like to know. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the buildings possibly being protected by architectural copyright, I would say upload away.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have new pictures. Upload? I was thinking along these lines. I was told drawings are okay. So I could substitute drawings of the buildings for the pictures. Then UCC will be happy. Wouldn't this be a good solution? I sometimes think of myself as a great arteeeste (nobody else thinks so!). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time, try taking pictures of the buildings at USC.[1] ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that it was the Daily Trojan reporting...how apropos is that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks Will. Great story. Here's what I was thinking:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add a small likeness of a brownshirt standing guard. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see picture above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to an outline of the law as it applies to photography in the United States; it's been extensively circulated among photographers and is useful to keep with you [2]. However, a college campus isn't exactly public space, and much depends on what's a public street and what's not. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're posting in the wrong place; there's nothing an enwiki admin can help you with here. I'd suggest contacting a licensed legal professional. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling the school would be the best option. Probably have to wait until Monday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I think has hit on the answer. Please keep in mind that even if you don't give cops cause to arrest you, they don't have to stretch the truth very much to make your life miserable. For example, when they took your DL, they probably called in to check for warrants. He can take his time about doing that, and what are you going to do? And I don't even want to start on patdowns and automobile searches. I would be polite, say something like "I didn't know that, thanks." Don't get smart with them, get out of their jurisdiction pronto, and Monday morning, if it's worth making an issue over, call campus information and start looking for the responsible official. Don't call the campus police, let the official do that if you are lucky enough to get action. And if you then go back (I would not, I would ask your students for help if more images are needed), take a printout of the email in which he says its OK to take images on campus.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And, btw, a college campus is not a true public place. There are generally statutes or ordinances which allow them to restrict access. You don't want to be restricted from campus, that sort of thing goes into computers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise good points, and something else just occurred to me: You know how cops will sometimes pull someone over due to "a taillight out" or something like that? As a policeman acquaintance once told me, that's a "pretext" to justify pulling over someone that they've got an odd feeling about. So it's possible that the cops, for whatever reason, thought the OP "looked suspicious", so they used the camera thing as a pretext to running the ID through their system. Dollars to donuts, that's what was actually going on there. It would be good, next time, if there is a next time, to have documentation permitting photography. That will legitimize your being there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• And as the Supreme Court has upheld many times, pretext stops are perfectly fine. BTW, making a cartoon and calling them "dicks" is really kinda childish, don't ya think. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe they have a bugaboo about photography on campus because of some incident or other. I would not assume you'd get a different deal next time, especially if you run into the same cops, who might make an issue out of general principles. Only go back if you have your ducks in a row.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some places are odd that way. Do you know it's illegal to take a photograph of the New Jersey Turnpike (at least from Turnpike property)? I seem to recall an incident where someone was cited or arrested that caused me to look up the Turnpike regulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, photography restrictions on private property are a non-copyright restriction, which basically means you may be illegally trespassing to take the photos, but if you pull it off, we'll take them (without necessarily endorsing your actions). Also, in the US, architectural copyright falls under freedom of panorama, so there is no copyright issue in uploading photos of buildings; moreover there is no US law restricting candid photographs of persons (personality rights law only restricts the use of a person's image for promotion), and our policy on identifiable people does not restrict any photograph of a person taken in a public place where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

As for the cops, personally, I'd consider placing photography restrictions on a public school campus as a gross abuse of the government's responsibility to represent the interests of the people in places and functions where public funding is involved, and if that happened to me I would lawyer up and talk to the press about it too. But that's a big investment and your response is up to you. :-) Dcoetzee 04:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not really an admin idea, but I'd call the local media and see if a reporter wants a 'freedoms being denied' story for this week's paper/broadcast. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with age I've learned that not every windmill is worth having a tilt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said earlier, get your ducks in a row before taking any kind of action. And one of those ducks would be to find out whether they have such a policy, and if so, why. I'm tempted to call them myself on Monday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Even better: their student handbook says that College staff can take pictures of anyone, anywhere on campus; these pictures become the property of the school, individuals depicted have no right to compensation. — they wanna take their own pictures and market them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks you've found the "smoking duck". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

...and the smoking dicks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's actually fairly reasonable. They don't want to worry about compensation and rights when assembling school materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Release forms need to be signed or else the pictures can't be used. What they're doing won't stand a chance in court should someone sue them (that's AZ, maybe NJ is full of dickheads). In any case, this whole thing is ridiculous; as long as there are no identifiable people on the pics, the OP should happily keep uploading them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, as mentioned above, if the building remains copyrighted under Freedom of Panorama, then it cannot be uploaded as a free image. Secondly, as far as the cops are concerned, yeah, I would be a little concerned as far as their actions, but there are several things I would like to comment on right regards to that. There are only two things that come to my mind as to why the campus security would come down on the user in question: first, terrorism; second, stalking (i.e. I don't need to go into much reason why it is illegal to take any pictures in locker rooms in gyms.). That being said, both reasons I gave are fairly weak and would be poor reasons to apprehend a person just because he/she was taking pictures of buildings and other miscellany.

All that being said, File:Union County College Police.jpg needs to come down, and now. That is a blatant attack image and is hence deletable under WP:CSD#G10. Moreover, it gives a bad image for established Wikipedians, who, despite our collective "rebellious" nature, should not be stooping this low to launch such attacks outward like that. Moreover again, it is extremely bad taste to be posting such images. I understand the user is frustrated and certainly has the right to complain, and while Wikipedia should not be the sole place for that, we should not be openly attacking other organizations or otherwise be complicit in that; such open attacks should be taken elsewhere on the Internet. –MuZemike 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit) I just realized the image in question was uploaded to Commons. However, the same deletion rationale applies, and it should still be taken down due to its vindicitive nature. –MuZemike 07:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit confused. Freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright law which (in the US) permits two-dimensional reproductions of copyrighted architecture (but not of sculptures, posters, etc). Dcoetzee 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I was just gonna say that. Otherwise, we could all trash whatever cameras we have in urban areas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I sleep, wake up and this thread is still going strong. Thank you everybody for your intelligent comments -- it is a highly instructive lesson. You people are sharp and smart and what makes Wikipedia great (my OR); I appreciate the attention because it suggests on some level a kind of support. So, what I'm getting is the attack-cartoon is counter-productive (yes I'm being somewhat childish); if I choose to upload the 17+ pictures of buildings (no people) which are in my camera it will be cool with Wikipedia, right? That is, Wikipedia probably won't delete them. (Although if they're posted perhaps I might get in further trouble with Union County College? -- yes I'm willing perhaps to put up with this). Monday I should call the administration and followup on this. What about drawings of buildings? (see picture to the right) Last, I used to be a local reporter, and my reporter's instinct says that whenever people are exerting effort to block pictures, even asking police to detain people taking pictures, there may be something they're trying to hide. And even last, I think we're all wanting to wind down this thread, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

None of us speak for Wikipedia, but I don't see any valid grounds for deletion, and really doubt anyone is going to ask for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to spam, but here's the section from Common's Freedom of Panorama for the US [3]: Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date.
However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.
This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the photograph is taken from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans (so one is free to do anything short of reproducing the building with another building, but the style elements such as gargoyles and pillars would not be individually protected). For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed from public places.

So the questions to ask are: are the buildings completed before Dec 1 1990? If so, you have every right to photograph them regardless of where you are located. If they were completed after that date, you can only take photos from public areas. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "public area" here mean "publicly accessible area" or "not privately owned grounds"? The wording you just cited, where "such interior public spaces as lobbies" are included, would point towards the former, right? In that case, a campus area would obviously also qualify as public. If he could walk into those areas unhindered, it was evidently publicly accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's generally what is meant: if you aren't restricted by any physical or personal means from entering the area, it's considered open to the public, and photos of anything taken from it are completely legal, and thus the only question becomes the copyright issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that a campus, an outdoor area, is akin to a lobby, it's a public space that people pass through freely and that also contains areas the inside of which is private. Access can be restricted if necessary, but for most, most of the time, people come and go as they please. In other words, it's not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I'll copy & paste the section about freedom of panorama to use if necessary, if challenged.

Thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably focussing on the wrong thing. It isn't a question of copyright, or freedom to take photos, the issue is going to be one of trespass. Would the campus and the inside of buildings be thought of to be the same as a shopping mall? If so they have the right to ask you to stop taking photographs, and if you persist to have you removed. John lilburne (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Even so, don't go without something from the administration. All you need is some cop with what do I care about something off the internet I told you not to do that, now you're coming with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of the photos you took, your treatment by camous security sounds like a serious infringement of your rights, and I strongly suggest that you speak to lawyer about what options you may have for launching a lawsuit against Union County College, the security guard personally, and the company that he works for. In my opinion, nothing you have described would give a campus security guard the right to detain you. It sounds to me like you may have been unlawfully detained by campus security and you may have a legitimate claim to made for damages, including punitive damages. Seek out a torts lawyer and get legal advice. As for your photos, my understanding of copyright law is that if you took them, then you own them. Best of luck. 72.175.231.30 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Union County College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_County_College#Reply_from_Union_County_College

-- Avanu (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Avanu. Appreciate. The only commotion that I saw was in the minds of the marketing people worrying that some reporter might make their school look bad! :) I've been doing a revamp of the article; since it's SO contentious, I'm leaving it in my sandbox until I get some guidance. Here's the proposed Union County College revamp. Gotta drive my daughter to you know where. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to discuss WWI genocide issue

As part of copy editing an article on alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians in WWI, it occurred to me that the article might be badly named/disambiguated/categorised, which isn't really my field.

Because of Turkish-Armenian sensitivities about this topic, I wonder whether there is a senior editor/admin with some expertise or interest in WWI or genocide who might discuss with me how I best go about not just abandoning this article to obscurity or pseudo-orphan status after the copy edit. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an incident. It was moved here by an administrator who didn't think it should be on the admin noticeboard. What I actually seek is input and advice, not action, resolution, or rule interpretation. So I've placed a adminhelp template on my talk page. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you need input from an admin in particular i.e why it belongs in either admin board Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Because -

1. Where else will I find lots of admins (searching help for contacts is futile)
2. Admins sometimes complain about hasty, unilateral actions by editors - something I want to avoid
3. Editors are encouraged in many communiques from Wikipedia big-wigs to ask before doing something pre-emptively
4. I didn't want to leave behind me a mess for someone else to find and clean up (that might be you, mightn't it?)
5. The topic is sensitive enough to warrant input from someone senior and/or au fait with policies that I may have no knowledge or understanding of (sounds like admin, smells like admin, is it admin?)
6. The topic is complex enough to deserve the attention of someone with an interest or expertise in doing it right
7. I want to know how issues like this are approached by Wikipedia seniors (sounds like admin ...)

I have a question for you: Is administrator input not something I can seek legitimately? If this is the wrong place, delete the entire thread. If you don't want to help, don't, but maybe you can suggest where I can find that help.

Finally, now attempt to block out for a moment your admin subjectivity and all you know about how things are done here, including the pain-in-the-arse workload you no doubt face with real incidents. Reconsider for a moment everything I have said and done, including not posting this here in the first place, and put yourself in my shoes. What conclusions would you reach about my experience with this request? Your question to me is that I answer for you precisely the questions I want to discuss with a senior Wikipedia contributor (read admins, the people who are supposed to know). Why would I seek that assistance if I already had the answers? Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If your editing of the article in question is likely to be contentious, then it is better to outline your proposed edit on the article's talk page and open a discussion. Admins are no more expert in a particular subject matter than any other editor, and in many cases, a non-admin may have better expertise on a particular subject. A relevant Wikiproject may also be a good venue to discuss issues and proposed edits. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Wince (shoulders slumping in discomfiture). Once more. This is not a dispute, edit war, or fire that needs to be put out. I did not put the request here - that was done by your admin colleague Jayron32, Skomorokh (sorry Jayron32)who moved it from vanilla admin notice board to here. The editing is done. The assistance required now is discussion on what to do with the article next.

I repeat, if this isn't the place for my request, or no one really gives a toss, please just delete the whole thread. What I'm trying to do here is prevent making decisions that might become someone else's headache in future, but without shrugging my shoulders and abandoning an article I know is ill-named or orphaned. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So you originally posted to AN and it got moved here -- that's no big deal, the overlap in readers for these two noticeboards is probably considerable, so there's no need to keep complaining about that move. Good or bad, it's here and it's not going back.

What I'm reading from your request is that you have concerns about an article's naming, and you want to talk to generally Wikipedia-knowledgeable editors about it, so you reached out to admins for help, but you don't seem inclined to post your request to the article's talk page, where you could talk to editors who may be generally less knowledgeable about Wikipedia, but who edit the article and are therefore interested in the subject, and possibly even knowledgable about it. Nor do you seem interested in talking to people in the WikiProject(s) that cover the subject matter.

I think the answer, obviously not the one you're looking for, is that if you have questions about the name of the article, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, or on the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject, and stop attempting to avoid discussing the issue with people who may disagree with you. Being Bold is one thing, but being bold when you clearly have concerns that your actions will be disagreed with and will not have consensus behind it, so you want to CYA in advance with some generic advice from admins, could be seen as being deliberately disruptive.

Discuss on the talk page, get a consensus there, then act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have now ripped from my stooped shoulders the cunning disguise of St Wales's cloak of good will, I hereby confess to my nefariously subversive intent. In my black conspirator's heart I deliberately ignored the fact that the discussion on the actual page is dead, that prior to me arriving as per GOCE request to copy edit, the last comment is more than a year old and indicative of a nationalist animus between the previous editors active there. So in my devious effort to subvert the project by re-igniting a nationalist edit war I passed up the opportunity to poke a stick into a hornet's nest and came here instead, drawing all attention to my obviously dishonourable intentions. It was a calculated risk, because I could have just taken it to the Turkey Portal, thrown it in there with a box of matches and some shellite, and ensured a renewed ethnic/nationalist edit war between Turks and Armenians. Instead of doing that pre-emptively, I managed to get you to advise me to do it, right?

As a dastardly conspirator I am particularly proud of my ability to have manipulated you into semiotically transforming a request for help into an open accusation of deliberately disruptive behaviour. There was, of course, the risk you might have passed up the opportunity to patronise me by actually looking at the page and gaining the impression that I was seeking advice about the right way to approach the issue without starting an edit war or ill feelings unless and until all the options had been explored. But us conspirators love to take 'hot dang' risks. Conspiracies wouldn't be fun without them, would they?

I thought it was pretty devious of me to pretend that I was acknowledging other people might have greater insight in preventing conflict. And wasn't it just a brilliant stroke of genius for me to engineer this admin semiotic reality-adjustment machine (ASRAM, us conspirators loooove acronyms) to ensure that all administrators in the known universe are now watching me for evidence that I'm doing something sneaky rather than trying to think proactively about helping the project? Conspiracies are more fun than sincere attempts at exploring options, right?

But my absolute masterstroke in this plot has been my uncanny ability to prevent anyone here from having any sympathy for the encyclopaedic project and the topic itself, thus engineering an ironic and truly destructive recreation of the post WWI bureaucratic failures that led to this topic becoming a major thorn in the side for people in that region to this very day. Was I not magnificent at obscuring the hot tempers on that article's talk page a few years ago, when the page was first created. Could I have done better at re-igniting those hostilities than getting you to direct me to throw the page back at the antagonists, thus ensuring that no one would first consider, at a remove, the best available options for the article and the project.

My conspiracy is complete. I have deviously managed to blacken my name (ooops ... when did that become part of my plot?), prevent a proactive approach, underpin admin support for nationalist edit wars, and waste my time for a few hours the way I always wanted to (didn't I?). So, I give myself up. Grant me one last cigarette and I will be ready for you to lead me into the courtyard to face the firing squad. I shall stand proudly next to my fellow conspirator, the tribunal article, and shall not blink as you execute the sentence. (Evil chuckle and conspiratorial hand-rubbing: 'Heh, heh, heh, little did you know that being executed, too, was part of my evil master plan'.) — Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: Discuss on the talk page, get a consensus there, then act. The rest is silence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If I do that and no one responds, say, within a week, would my sole vote there to seek advice here then count as a consensus to do that? BTW, your user name seems apposite. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you attempt to start a discussion there, and in the very unlikely event that no one responds after a reasonable amount of time, I think you are in the clear to be Bold and try your change. Just be ready for the deluge of responses it may bring on, and remember that the paradigm is WP:BRD: be Bold, get Reverted, then Discuss. Don't revert back if someone objects to your action, engage in discussion: you do not create a new status quo with a Bold move.

Regarding your parting remark,if you think that I don't know beans about surviving on Wikipedia, just go ahead and ignore my advice and see what happens. After all, personally experienced empirical results are the most convincing lesson. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Allrighty, just on the remote off-chance that I really didn't express this clearly enough the first time: I am not proposing changes. I have no proposal or agenda in mind at all. I don't want admin endorsement for anything. I am seeking advice from an admin on what might be a way of moving ahead so the article doesn't just die on the vine. I am not going to be BOLD. There is nothing to be BOLD about. My sole concern is to not leave an orphaned article behind, shrugging my shoulders and assuming this is someone else's responsibility.

If the metaphorical gun on your hip is weighing heavy and tempting you to do the sheriff bit, go ahead. It ain't a threat that will put me off. What are you gonna trash me for? Disagreeing with your 'assessment' of the situation? I am acting in good faith. I am astonished - no, gobsmacked - that a request for advice has become this bizarro assumption that I want to pursue some hidden agenda, waste everyone's time and that I'm looking for a 'showdown' just so an admin can smack me upside the head. Take a break, then a reality check. Remove your preconceived notions about my intentions and look again at this one simple statement: I want advice. And the bureaucratic, shoulder-shrugging response that I should go somewhere else for that advice isn't convincing because the one thing I have thought about carefully is where to seek that advice: from a senior Wikipedia contributor, not from a forum where ethnic tensions are high.

This whole thing has snowballed into some absurd and meaningless confrontation because every admin involved in this thread since Skomorokh has simply assumed bad faith. Isn't that a breach of one of your cardinal rules? Or have I misunderstood and asking for advice from an admin is now against the rules? Oh, and the parting remark was intended to convey the message that you know beans about my intentions, principally because you haven't, thus far, tried to understand them. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been getting "bureaucratic shoulder shrugging" because no one was sure what you were asking. There's no assumption of bad faith but, your questions really didn't make sense. If all you want is for more people to participate in editing/watching the article, try a WikiProject related to the subject. Of course, anyone with an interest in your subject likely already has been involved in the ethnic-conflict issues here.

Finally, calm down, maybe have a nice cup of tea. People have been trying to understand, but AN & ANI don't typically get requests for admins to simply watch a new page. Usually it only comes up if there's repeated vandalism, or threats of POV pushing from off-wiki that admins need to be aware of. I can understand your frustration, but lashing out at the admins really doesn't help you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks THTFY. I thought your cup of tea idea was a nice touch, though I prefer a whiskey, a cigar and the Moonlight Sonata in that context. Because I liked your response so much, I thought about responding on your talk page, but I think my words are appropriate for all administrators who care to read them. Setting the scene: armchairs, Moonlight Sonata, me with whiskey and cigar, you with whatever your equivalent is. Sotto voce, genteel talk.

I think there's a tremendous irony in me coming here to ask advice on how to ask appropriate questions, and that no one could figure out that this is what I was doing, that my intent was philosophical and abstract rather than specific and agenda-driven. That's probably my fault. My command of English is considered by some as pretty good, but it obviously failed me this time.

The more I persisted that I wasn't seeking an intervention, ruling or imprimatur, the more it seemed this was assumed to be precisely the case. In fact, even you, THTFY, assume I want someone to 'watch' a page. Where, in all my words, did you find that inference? Maybe I'm blinded by my own subjectivity to what my words actually say.

It doesn't really matter now, because I found the help I was looking for serendipitously elsewhere. But on my journey to that place, I also found a couple of other, oddly jarring discourses.

The first was a Wikimedia Talk page, where academics, Wikimedia big-wigs and passers-by like me were discussing the statistics about declining editor numbers, and the possible reasons. One of the posts there was the proposition that some administrator behaviours here are synonymous with those of street gangs, intimidating and driving away world-class subject matter experts with clumsy handling of assumptions and personal interactions. Hmmm. It's a matter of personal experience, I suppose, and I'm no world class anything. But I suppose the opinion came from someone suggesting that one singular experience can be difficult to expunge even after thousands of positive ones.

The other, possibly even more jarring discourse was a most eloquent and passionate, if somewhat mournfully pessimistic reflection on the futility of rationality once two or more administrators have determined that an editor means X rather than Y. I found that discourse jarring because its author was Beyond My Ken.

There is an admitted level of difficulty attached to any question about how to ask questions. But I won't apologise for being inclined to ask it, or for not knowing where to ask it. If I owe apologies it's because I was unable to communicate that question to anyone, including you, THTFY.

So, having finished my whiskey and cigar, and the Moonlight Sonata now winding down, I express my sincere thanks to all who spent time on this matter, extend my apologies to all who were offended by my approach (except for the one who commented 'into the hell mouth with you', whom I shall see there some day), and leave you with this thought: I know you all work hard at doing the best job you know how, but what that looks like to everyone else in practice is up to you. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual disruption by Rosanacurso and socks

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

Rosanacurso (talk · contribs) is now community banned from Wikipedia. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Since the beginning of March, we've had a basically constant disruption from Rosanacurso (talk · contribs) and their socks. It's been confirmed by checkuser that this editor has been wardriving around their town, creating socks, and causing general problems. One common thread is that they all tend to edit the sandbox, but of course we're not going to protect the sandbox for a long time. You can look at the SPI case archive to see what's been going on, but I'm bringing it up here because we have to do something about it. Checkusers have stated that we can't do any sort of IP blocking since it's all over the place, so that's not an option. Is there anything else we can do? Or are we just going to have a perpetually open SPI case? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One could attempt to gain support for a temporary community ban of some sort, which would allow users to revert-on-sight and bypass WP:3RR. elektrikSHOOS 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I will note that Rosanacurso has created 194 socks within the past 3 weeks. –MuZemike 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread not to enact a community ban (though that's fine on its own), but to see if there's something on a technical level that can be done. Or are we really just relegated to having to constantly RBI? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the checkusers were right. If there's a wide range of IPs being used there's no way we can block one user without also potentially blocking a large group of helpful users. WP:RBI is the only way to go, though if it persists for some time you could file a report at WP:LTA and see if the users' ISP could be contacted. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great question from HelloAnnyong, is there anything else that can be done, to keep this from happening? It's not really showing any sign of slowing down. The only idea I have, which would only make a marginal difference, would be to semi-protect WT:Sandbox, which seems to attract some of the edits--and this is really a redundant page, anyway. Note that I am not suggesting semi-protecting WP:Sandbox--that's the main sandbox. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Elektrik, contacting ISPs won't help us if the user is driving around town and stealing WiFi from people. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor am I suggesting that would help. However, if most of the vandalism is being performed from one or two locations that use dynamic IPs, the ISPs who provide service to those locations could be contacted for abuse as a last resort. elektrikSHOOS 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I wasn't paying attention to the wardriving aspect. Carry on as if I hadn't said anything. elektrikSHOOS 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How many articles are being affected, other than the sandbox? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BB, it seems to be getting more erratic. At first it was mostly Tea (meal) and Talk:Fish and chips, but it seems some of the accounts since then have moved to other, more random articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say more than 20. Here's a sample.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for community ban

And not a temporary one. 112 socks = indef ban, end of story. At the time of the previous ban proposal, I recall that while Rosanacurso had 50+ suspected socks, only one was actually confirmed. When the problem gets that much worse in such a short period of time, you know it's time to eliminate it at its source. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I re-tagged them all as actual socks, as it's bloody obvious that they all are. –MuZemike 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support a community ban. It's been a while, and at 100+ socks, all of them disruptive, it's clear that this user has no interest in improving the project. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They're just going to be indef-blocked when they show up anyway, so what's the point of a ban? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would be more of a formality at this point than anything. But still, it would allow editors to revert-on-sight, etc. Beyond that I don't really see anything we can do other than WP:RBI. elektrikSHOOS 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I guess it would mean that once they are socked and blocked, their edits can be reverted without requiring any further reason. I'll support, then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - not to mention this has to be the most fucking retarded reason to be wardriving. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I completely agree with the diagnosis of wardriving. With that said, could it be possible that more than one person is involved? There is still massive sockpuppetry, of course. The sock names often refer to students at a particular school--maybe it is actually more than one student at a school. With that said, the edits are so similar that it is easy to believe that it is just one person. Unfortunately, none of this gets at the issue of reducing the incidence of this problem. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is the most pointless use of wardriving in human history. --NellieBly (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Completely ridiculous. Ban and let editors revert on sight. Heiro 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Kcowolf (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment maybe an edit filter could be developed that stops edits from new accounts from that IP range. That would have much less fallout than a range block. If the person is obstinate enough to keep editing the sandbox consistently, the filter could even notice that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't an IP range that could be used - the editor is driving round and using all sorts of different unsecured wireless networks, so there are lots of IP ranges -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. But the edit filter might be able to figure out the geolocation. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe some of the edits have a common thread, like they are all from the same school ("ITE"?). Or with over 100 SPs, have some IPs come up repeatedly? I am sure this is wardriving, but even a partial block would slow this down. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Beyond time to ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Such flagrant thumbing of the nose at the community cannot be allowed to continue. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can see no benefit from doing otherwise. (In the unlikely event that it's a group of people rather than one individual, well, the group have all been behaving disruptively and only detract from the encyclopædia). bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Catherineyronwode

There is a limit to my patience. "fuck you" is beyond that limit. Catherine has been previously blocked for personal attacks. Rami R 19:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The exchange is here. For the record, there were 18 instances of random, mostly IP vandalism on Sundae on 3rd April before the protection. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding. Catherine was working hard on the Sundae article as an IP. Meanwhile there had been significant random IP vandalism that day. Rami R protected the article against IP vandalism. Catherine took umbrage on the assumption that Rami R meant her editing. Rami and another editor have tried to explain the situation to Catherine. Catherine does not appear to have accepted that explanation and still feels aggrieved and insists she personally was called a "persistent vandal", hence the edit summary "fuck you". Daft. No doubt Catherine will see it that way herself when calmer. No admin intervention necessary beyond a message.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Y is a personal attack and uncivil discourse a reason to block anyone? 140.247.141.137 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because as we are a collaborative environment we have to be civil to one another. You wouldn't tell your boss to fuck off, and if you told a policeman to fuck off you'd be highly likely to find yourself arrested - and in most countries you'd probably get the shit kicked out of you as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Catherineyronwode's sole block is from 2006, not long after she registered her account. Whether or not there are ongoing civility issues that have not triggered blocks in the meantime, I cannot say. On the other hand, I do find Catherineyronwode's lecturing tone a bit rich: "Rudeness is such a turn-off when your staff consists of volunteers." Indeed.

Sorry, Rami, Wikipedia's non-admin volunteers are allowed to curse out admin volunteers for any reason or no reason whatsoever. We can't do anything to help you, because that would be 'abuse' of our 'authority'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a good thing :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok but why are these silly cases of rudeness, uncivil things and personal attacks ok? Are they ok? 140.247.141.137 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not OK ... TenOfAllTrades was injecting some humor. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what User:TenOfAllTrades is talking about; we block people for persistent incivility all the time. In this case, it looks like she mistakenly thought she had been accused of vandalism and prevented from editing. Shortly after that, she logged off (which is exactly what one ought to do when too pissed off to be civil). I don't see any sign that she has read the note on her talk page or this discussion. She probably doesn't know she was mistaken yet. I'd kind of like to give her a chance to understand what happened and apologize, rather than immediately blocking her right now, when she may or may not cause any further problem. Don't you agree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine's complaint seems to be that the article was semi'd and she couldn't use her IP to edit the article anymore. So why wasn't she logged on in the first place? Semi has no effect on an established user ID. Seems to me she grossly overreacted. However, Rami is not faultless here either. "F.U." is not OK in and of itself, but the emotional state of an established and sincere editor has to be taken into consideration. If a redlink or a little-used IP says "F.U.", that's usually trolling, begging for a block. That does not seem to be the case here. The admin and the editor need to have some more dialogue on this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a note for Catherine on Rami's talk page.[12] Catherine got a little heated but try to apply some understanding to the frustrating situation she was in. This is a "wikiquette alert" situation at worst. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait Rami is an admin? Would someone explain to me then why we're discussing someone on ANI who has not been notified? If the feeling was further contact may just inflame the situation which is the only real reason I can see for failure of notification then this should have been noted in the original message surely? Also is it really fair to say someone should have just logged in when we have no idea if the is a reason they couldn't have logged in, like editing from a computer they do not trust and when in any case policy is clear we do not require users to have an account or use it if they do provided they aren't engaged in abusive sockpuppetry? Wouldn't a far better message have been something like 'I'm sorry that you were unable to edit as an IP, unfortunately as you can see from the history semi-protection was necessary. As you already have an account, hopefully this does not create too much of an inconvenience. If you are unable to log in due to security concerns, you may want to consider creating an alternative account for such situations.' Yes it would have been easier if 'Catherineyronwode' hadn't go so worked up in the first place but remember if you're an admin you are expected to keep your cool even when others don't (or failing that, don't respond). Incidentally I agree with ToAT and others. If the only problem is 'fuck you' which appears to be more reflecting frustration then anything else and was directed at an admin anyway, and the last and sole block for personal attacks was in 2006 when a user had just started editing, at best a WQA. And I would note even if Catherineyronwode doesn't apologise but also doesn't continue I still see no reason to block. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rami notified Catherine a minute after posting here.[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to Rami, I forgot the discussion was going on in Rami's talk page not Catherine's. However the rest of my statement still stands. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That attitude, Nil Einne, is precisely the problem that I bemoaned in my first comment. Since the 'fuck you' was "directed at an admin anyway", for some reason it counts as less inappropriate or offensive in the minds of some editors—you, apparently, included. Why is that? Why is it that we should be more tolerant of abuse directed at the volunteers our community has judged to be responsible and trustworthy? Why is it less okay to 'fuck you' a non-admin? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rami made this request ;). Given she made the 'fuck you' comment on Rami's talk page, and given it was explained there before that comment that she wasn't the vandal, I'm not sure it was appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the 'fuck you' was appropriate. However just because a comment was inappropriate doesn't mean there's really much that can or should be done about it from an admin point of view (remember this is WP:ANI). In particular, as others have said it's not even clear it was really directed at Rami as opposed to a more general expression of frustration at wikipedia and the people here. And even if it were, while incivil it's quite questionable to call it a personal attack. Note that while the discussions was going on at Rami's talk page you had responded before the 'fuck you' came. And while an attempt may have been made to explain to Catherine that the 'persistent vandal' bit wasn't directed at her it appears it was not understood. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously suggesting a block are they? Rami notified Catherine. I looked into it (see above) and left a message on Catherine's page in which I expressed the view her behaviour had not been appropriate. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion over notification, I have struck my comment. Anyway to the main point, bearing in mind this is WP:ANI not WP:WQA (or any of the other places you can go to for non administrative help in dealing with a situation although give the existence of talk page stalkers it's not even clear if even that was necessary) and the original message was 'There is a limit to my patience. "fuck you" is beyond that limit. Catherine has been previously blocked for personal attacks.' Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was uncivil and a personal attack directed at Rami. That doesn't inexorably lead to a block. We don't ( or shouldn't) rush to block editors in good standing because they have a bit of a snit in a moment of frustration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to sleep, came back and wrote another 1.5 hours on the sundae article. Then i wandered off again and only came back to check for typos (and corrected them) and saw the AN/I note. So here i am, a day late.

Rami clarified that nothing personal was intended in the term "persistent vandalism," and i will clarify that the term "fuck you" was not an "attack" nor was it personally directed at Rami; it was simply an expletive expressive of a late-night combination of pent-up frustration and aggrieved virtue. I apologize for any offense caused; my intention was self-expression, not incivility per se.

To the question of why i log in from my IP address -- it is a personal choice. I would not get into this here, in the midst of an AN/I response, but the question was asked, so here is the reply:

I am not a social person and have never claimed to be, but i study human social interactions in order to learn how to "be" a social person. I am a writer, and i've been working here for 5 years, doing scut work for no reason other than that i like the idea of a large encyclopedia. As "notable wikipedian" catherine yronwode, i am often treated with deference and courtesy when i identify myself as user Catherineyronwode. The polite treatment is appreciated, but i also hear from newbies who are just trying to start editing that they get snotty responses from long-time editors, and i wonder what it feels like to be them. I use my IP to see how i will be treated as an IP compared to when i log in under my real name. I am curious about these three levels of my reality: notable wikipedian catherine yronwode / user-editor-writer Catherineyronwode / anonymous IP 64.142.90.33.

The experiment has been interesting. My IP user page 64.142.90.33 (talk) specifically identifies the 64.142.90.33 (talk) IP as an alternate for my Catherineyronwode username and links to same, as well as providing a running total of how many years i wave worked here. Yet despite the clear identification, the 64.142.90.33 (talk) page has on several occasions been decorated with all manner of fatuous auto-reverts and "try the sandbox" auto-guff that has, in fact, never been posted to my Catherineyronwode page.

In other words, by not logging in, i am testing the WP system in the same way that a "mystery shopper" tests a chain store's customer service implementation. I am not going incognito -- the links on my IP page are quite clear.

Most of the time when i write and edit as an IP, everything goes well. In fact, at times, i have worked for weeks or months as "Ol' 64" with no condescending auto-messages left on my pages and no lock-outs or auto-reverts. Other times, i absolutely get hassled just for being an IP writer. The auto-reverts, lock-outs, and auto-messages arrive at the whim of editors who don't investigate first -- they just fire off their negative projections at me because i'm not logged in. My writing is the same, my code is as clean as always, my research is just as acceptably reffed -- but as an IP, i get splattered.

The fact that i was writing at night, just after google had made the sundae page a click-magnet, should indicate my interest in improving wikipedia articles, and the fact that i got angry when i thought i was being called a "persistent vandal" should let the psychologists among you know that i was caught off-guard and taken unawares while i was in the middle of a self-perception of myself as a fun-loving, virtuous, hard-working, happy volunteer.

Cordially, catherine yronwode a.k.a. 64.142.90.33 (talk) a.k.a. Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

When an article is locked for whatever reason, before getting angry at the locking admin you should check the article's recent history and see what else has been going on besides just your edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseballl Bugs, i did that. I had been editing on the sundae page (and related pages, like Royal Ann cherry, linking them together) for 1.25 hours, during which time i had made perhaps a dozen page-saves, six of them on the sundae page, and i saw no vandalism and no other editors at all during that time. Then the page was suddenly semi-protected for "persistent vandalism." I checked a few previous edits and they did not look to me like vandal edits, so since i was the only one working on the page at all, i thought that the lock-out was aimed at me and i was being called a persistent vandal. These are the edits i checked, to see if the claim of "persistant vandalism" was being made at me:

• six edits by me, over a 1.25 hour period, preceded by the following edits NOT by me:
• someone removed New York (state) after Buffalo (city); that was a style matter; large cities often don't get states after their names
• someone fixed a typo on "pecans"
• someone changed "named for" to "named after"
• someone changed a date from 1882 to 1892. I thought this was a math problem; it might have been vandalism or restoration from vandalism, but in fact there were numerous conflicting and disputed dates in the article (that is, the fact that the dates are disputed was the point of a good deal of the page's text), and math is not my strong suit
• someone capitalized the word "blondie" to "Blondie" probably thinking of the singer or the comic strip and assuming the name of the blondie cookie should be capitalized; a style call (i later de-capitalized it), but a legitimate error
• i added a description of turtle candies

So i checked, and the past 12 edits did not look like vandalism to me. Seven of those 12 edits were mine. I did not arrive lightly at the conclusion that the remark was directed at me. I did check. I have accepted Rani's statement that the term was not aimed at me, despite the fact that i was the only one working on the article at the time of the semi-lock-out. It was not the semi-protection that angered me -- it was that it looked like there were no vandals -- and in fact no one had recently been near the article but me. Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not used to say "Fuck you." Doesn't matter how good a content creator you are or not - no excuse for it. You're not going to get blocked for your poor use of them, but you shouldn't do it again. Why is this still here? Use edit summaries for what they were intended for, and move along. Doc talk 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to Catherine:

Looking at the sequence of events during the 3rd, the key facts you overlooked were the request for page protection, the timing of the vandalisms, and the timing of the fulfillment of the request for page protection:

1. I'm seeing questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 23:47 on the 2nd, then on the 3rd at 01:00, 01:28, 01:29, 02:03, 02:19, 02:28, 03:04.
2. I'm guessing Google posted their thing no later than 04:00 UTC, as that would be midnight EDST in the US.
3. More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 04:16, 04:20, 04:23, 04:55, 05:05, 05:22, 05:47, 05:48, 06:04, 06:26, 06:41.
4. Tbhotch requested protection for the Sundae page at 06:47, due to the Google thing.[14]
5. More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 06:49, 07:25, 07:34, 07:49, 08:17, 08:20, 08:22, 08:25, 08:29, 08:31.
6. Your first edit as an IP came at 08:33 and the last at 09:46.
7. Rami fulfilled the RFPP request and semi'd Sundae at 09:48.
8. You begin editing using your login at 09:51.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

IP removing stub templates

Please see 68.199.204.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Don't know if this is some sort of subtle vandalism or what. --Lyncs (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started reverting (TW). This is the first time rollback could come in handy; it's tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done others with rollback. I didn't of course check every single edit and instead presumed the random sampling of what I saw which in every case appeared to be removal of the stub template without discussion and where the article does appear to be a stub represented all the edits. I hope no one bites my head off if it turns out I removed the one constructive edit there somewhere Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should give the user a warning; and if the user continues this behavior - (s)he will need to be blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the edits on the second page as far back as March 23rd ar 19:00ish UTC, and reverted the stub tag removal edits. Please note that on March 23-24' there were a few edits of other types. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot to check if there was another page. Thanks for your help. I have asked the user not to continue to mass remove stub templates from articles which are stubs without discussion and informed them continuing to do so may result in a block. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Good job! --Lyncs (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this was last discussed, the IP in question has removed stub tags from three more articles. I've given the IP a more stern warning this time, albeit templated, and reverted the changes. elektrikSHOOS 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's really not acceptable. Their explanation, "too many stubs" would seem to indicate they do not really get why we tag things as stubs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And here they go again. Final warning has been issued on their talk page, feel to issue a short block if this continues. elektrikSHOOS 03:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Madjewelvisor

• Madjewelvisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.26.216.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Rastamouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Madjewelvisor appears to be an account that has been created to WP:EVADE the indefinite block [[15]] placed on User:Rastamouse-ting. Also appears to have been making edits under IP 86.26.216.41, in particular a personal attack here: [[16]]

I will point out however, that conduct has improved in so much as the personal attacks are less offensive in nature, but they do continue as does the constant assuming of bad faith, and general WP:OWN behaviour with regards to Rastamouse. Further thoughts on Talk:Rastamouse#user_Rubiscous_.26_Episodes_data. Rubiscous (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

user:rubiscous appears to want to disrupt the RASTAMOUSE page & publish incorrect info & not want to be corrected. Note his account has been warned TWICE BEFORE about disrupting the site. This will continue no doubt. I will not publish my reasons for his poor attitude here. He wants to disrupt any user of this page & links me to another unaware Rastamouse was getting 3.5k hits a day. Tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjewelvisor (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The content dispute is not the issue here, and should be confined to the article's talk page. The main issue is not even your conduct towards myself and other users, it's that you have created a new account to evade the block on your old one, the correct procedure is to appeal the block. I may disagree with some content you add to the article but I do not disrespect your motivations for editing. All I ask for is the same courtesy. Additionally, as you, User:Rastamouse-ting and IP 86.26.216.41 are the same person, I have had no dispute with any other editor of Rastamouse.

The "warnings" of which you speak were merely automated responses from a bot with regards to my good faith edits [[17]] and [[18]], and were duly reported as false positives. Rubiscous (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User Rubiscous & Rastamouse

as stated in the answer to my page this user RUBISCOUS appears intent on causing errors to be published & thinking this is correct. Note on his user page he has already BEEN WARNED TWICE of similar behaviour. Why he picks on Rastamouse is open to wide speculation. It's a nice kids TV shows with Black characters & has been popular & sadly also the subject of vandalism, of whch RUBISCOUS can be seen to be part of. The other users he knocks down ADDED much to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjewelvisor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Rubiscous is acting in bad faith toward this article. Concerns about article content should be addressed at the talk page, not at AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All my edits are made in good faith and I assume good faith in others' edits. User:Madjewelvisor's complaint appears to be merely retaliatory because of the above complaint, note that he has made no attempt at a defence, and has done nothing but use the opportunity to attack me. Rubiscous (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: this was previously a separate topic at the bottom of the page. I moved it up here, comments intact, because I believed it to be related to the above discussion. If anyone else feels otherwise, feel free to move it back. elektrikSHOOS 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned User Returned

This banned user is apparently back again in a new incarnation...

This guy, who threatened both me and an admin, just keeps creating new accounts...

New edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rock%26RollSuicide

Here's the sockpuppet investigation of his various old sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gypsydog5150/Archive

His editing pattern: politician - Tom Corbett; rock bands - Van Halen, Poison, and Anthrax, don't leave much room for doubt that this is the same guy.

Looking at the Tom Corbett edit history, it looks like he came out from under his IP cover to avoid an edit protection that was imposed as a result of his anonymous edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Corbett&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He deleted the ANI notice I posted on his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rock%26RollSuicide&diff=prev&oldid=421890203

John2510 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Old thread (from 11/9/10):

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

This is too complex to solve at ANI. I recommend that you reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gypsydog5150 and add the new IPs and registered accounts that you think are him. If you can demonstrate the behavioral similarity a checkuser may be willing to assist. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you should open a new case @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gypsydog5150, and we'll see if a CU is needed. If it's not opened in a few hours, I will copy paste your evidence in to a case. (Because I'm busy doing Homework right now. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the well sourced text

A user Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has replaced a large piece of text with his own text, and thereby removed relevant and well sourced information from the Communist terrorism article[19]. This removal has been done without proper explanation on the talk page and without adequate edit summaries. The attempts to remove this text has been done before by the same user under dubious pretext[20], or with a misleading edit summary[21]; they also argued that the sources used by their opponents are "junk" [22], [23]. However, the discussion on the WP:RSN demonstrated that the Tentontunic's statement that the sources used by their opponents are not reliable, non-mainstream and non-academic was incorrect [24][25]. The discussion on the WP:NPOVN also demonstrated that the sources Tentontunic seeks to remove are mainstream, and that due weight should be given to them in the article [26][27].
It is necessary to note that the article is under the WP:1RR, so repeated removal of the same text, even with the intervals loner than 1 day is the edit warring.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you, in response to this recent removal, attempted to start a conversation with this user? --Jayron32 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the NPOV board most certainly does not back your assertion. And I have used your sources in the rewrite. (did you not notice?) This is another frivolous complaint from a user who has persistently block shopped when he does not get his own way. If he has an issue with my edits to the article he ought really take it up on the article talk page. I will also point out I made it quite clear on the article talk page I was rewriting the sections in question. And that this user making the complaint has also removed well sourced text several times, but I did not go block shopping because of it. Tentontunic (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32. The talk page conversations with this user are tens thousand kilobytes long, and I have no hope that additional conversation will lead to somethong useful. The last massive changes of the article's text has been made without any attempt to discuss it on the article's talk page, and the fact that some (just few) of my sources have been used in the new (truncated) version changes nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic should avoid removing and inserting text while there is disagreement. It amounts to a slow edit war, but it is edit-warring nonetheless. TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how rewriting content so it flows as a decent narrative and is not a disjointed selection of statements is edit warring. If siebert can remove content and rewrite it as he sees fit then I may also do so. I will also point out that TFD has been block shopping also, filing a spurious enforcement request against me. Tentontunic (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And this on top of sieberts constant personal attacks really does take the biscuit. He calls me a liar around 5 times and no action taken, I edit an article he has ownerships issues on and he files this. What a joker. 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how removal of the large piece of text, which was supported by good quality references (also removed) can be considered "rewriting". Per WP:3RR it is a revert, and, since this revert is repeated, it is slow edit-warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "liar". Obviously, I never called Teonontunic a liar. However, since some of their statements were false, I characterised them (under "them" I mean the statements, not Tentontunic) accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly accused my of being a liar. And have yet to retract your attacks even when it has been pointed out to you why you were wrong. And as for removal of large sections of text, were? As near as I can see the only content you had inserted which is not currently there was In December 1956, the South Vietnamese communists, had been attacked by Ngô Đình Diệm's troops who initiated a "Anti-Communist Denunciation Campaign" leading to numerous arrests and executions, frequently via beheading or disemboweling.[42] The Communists, who had been driven into remote swamps,[43] decided to revive the insurgency.[44] because it is wrong the insurgency had not ended, so how can it have restarted? Tentontunic (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, since the content removed by Tentontunic (by this edit[[28]]) includes, for instance, this fragment:

"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda to deny the partisans' political legitimacy, to locate the Malayan Emergency in a broader context of the Cold War and to preserve a British business interests in Malaya, which would be heavily affected had the British administration conceded that they faced a full scale anti colonial insurgency. Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures. "

it would be probably correct to characterise their last post as false. By writing that I by no means want to characterise Tentontunic themselves. I may provide other examples, however this one is sufficient, in my opinion.

Re " because it is wrong the insurgency had not ended, so how can it have restarted? " Although this is more a dispute over a content, let me point out that this statement is also wrong, because there were (as far as I know) no Communist insurgency in Southern Vietnam before Communists had been attacked by the government.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And the viet minh were? Which I have added to the article in the rewrite. The majority of the content remains the same, it is just easier to read now. You are just block shopping because you want control over this article. You have removed reliably sourced content quite a few times and added content with no consensus, tell me please why you feel I may not do this? Tentontunic (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, by comparing the Tentontunic's version with the previous one it becomes quite obvious who removes a reliably sourced context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not answer my question? Or do you deny removing reliably sourced content? Tentontunic (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although my post about the Malaya has been left unanswered by Tentontunic, I'll try to address their question. Regarding Vietnam, the previous text:

"In December 1956, the South Vietnamese communists, had been attacked by Ngô Đình Diệm's troops who initiated a "Anti-Communist Denunciation Campaign" leading to numerous arrests and executions, frequently via beheading or disemboweling. The Communists, who had been driven into remote swamps, decided to revive the insurgency. This insurgency had been supported by the North Vietnamese Communist leadership. An assassination campaign, referred to as "extermination of traitors" or "armed propaganda" in communist literature, began in April 1957. The campaign targeted political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military. During the Vietnam War, between 1965 and 1972 the Viet Cong had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. In Saigon terrorist actions have been described as "long and murderous". Tactics by the Viet Cong, such as the beheading of the village chief and cutting off the arm of his 12 year old daughter in Binh Dinh province, were designed to intimidate and frighten the citizenry. The prime minister of the time Tran Van Huong was shot in an attempted assassination. "

has been replaced with

"At the end of World War II the Viet Minh who had fought the Japanese began operations against the French colonial forces. After the armistice signed between the two forces in 1954 terrorist actions continued.

Carol Winkler has written that in the 1950`s Viet Cong terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. "

In connection to that, the question (addressed to me) "Or do you deny removing reliably sourced content? " hardly deserves a detailed answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This was the question, You have removed reliably sourced content quite a few times and added content with no consensus, tell me please why you feel I may not do this? Please tell me why you feel it is reasonable for you to remove reliably sourced content but not I? Tentontunic (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is quite simple. We (Tentontunic and I) worked together on the talk page on the same draft. Tentontunic was unsatisfied with the modifications proposed by me, and requested new sources. When I provided the sources Tentontunic claimed that the sources were junk (this claim was later refuted on the WP:RSN), and stopped to respond. After that Tentontunic added their own version of the text, completely ignoring my modifications and the sources I added, as if no discussion between them and me occurred. Of course, this unilateral step could not be left unanswered, and I added my version, which was an extended, and more neutral variant of what Tentontunic has proposed. In addition, I always explained my edits on the talk page, provided needed arguments on the appropriate noticeboard, whereas Tentontunic continued to argue even when their arguments had been exhausted, and when others explained him the flaw of their position. If an uninvolved admin will need in some diffs, they will be provided upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And again you evade the question put to you, please respond to this. Please tell me why you feel it is reasonable for you to remove reliably sourced content but not I? This is the third time I have asked this. Tentontunic (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My answer has just been deleted by another user[29]. Is it in accordance with the rules?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral observer who responded to a comment at WP:NPOVN, there appears to be some ownership issues on this article. It seems from some of the comments that there is a patterm of Disruptive Editing per WP:DE in that questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits are repeatedly ignored. It certainly warrants closer examination by a neutral admin. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm also an involved user, I am disappointed that Paul Siebert has taken the "enforcement" route to have his way on content. There are only several active editors at the article at the moment. Requesting enforcement based on contentions of superiority of one's own content and aspersions cast on one's editorial opposition are poor conduct indeed. Editor Paul Siebert has attacked me on the talk page of said article over content I have not even yet created, that is the level of antagonism currently being dispensed to editors even just anticipated to have some alternate editorial POV. FYI, Paul Siebert eventually agreed to wait and see regarding my anticipated edits (see my talk); however, the general pattern of attempting to control content by attacking one's editorial opposition appears to continue elsewhere unabated. I'm commenting here because I had hoped we had made some progress on a more constructive approach to a potentially contentious topic. Clearly I was mistaken. I regret feeling an obligation to comment in the negative on an editor whom I have stated in the past I respect. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll try to abstain from answering on that. Despite this your comment, I still respect you, and I would like to preserve this my attitude in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Another case of "I can't win on the article talk page as I do not have consensus so let's try AN/I as another place to ask"itis. This is one of the worst uses of AN/I possible, and with a bunch of editors who appear at length on the article talk page opining at great length here. Collect (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This ANI discussion thus far essentially boils down to, anyone who is agreeing with Paul is on his side in the debate on the talk page. Anyone who disagrees is on the opposite side of the debate. This is a content dispute and a clear example of users in a dispute attempting to use discretionary sanctions against each other to remove the users that don't agree with them. Silverseren^C 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The content dispute is a dispute over a content. This thread is about something else: independently of what is being said on the talk page or noticeboards, some person, which seems to participate in these discussions just pro formae, unilaterally inserts their edits, and removes the edits of others. This is definitely a dispute over conduct, not content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is primarily a splendid example of forumshopping on your part - as others have also noted. Collect (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul has removed huge sections of sourced content in the past [30],[31],[32], Paul also has a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with him as "disruptive"[33]. There has already been a complaint about Paul's behaviour here, and he undertook to restrict his interaction with some editors just a day ago[34], and yet here he is at it again. --Martin (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As I has always explained before, the alleged removal of the text was the move of the text to another article, which was preceded by prolonged discussion, and the consensus was to move. Please, avoid misleading statements in future. BTW, the later example is a pure content dispute, because noone can point at any problems with anybody's conduct during the discussion of that move.

Re "Paul also has a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with him as "disruptive"" given that just one example has been provided, such a degree of generalisation is hardly justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I appreciate your attempt to point an uninvolved administrator's attention at this issue[35]. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me summarize

During this discussion following users expressed their opinions:

1. User:Tentontunic;
2. Martin;
3. User:Collect;
4. PЄTЄRS J V;
5. User:Silver seren
6. TFD
7. Wee Curry Monster
8. Jayron

First four users are deeply involved in the dispute over this issue, which has one month long history. Some of them (e.g. Peters) openly and honestly declared that. The fifths user is not currently involved, although they were involved in the similar disputes in the past. TFD is also involved, but they belong to the opposite party. Jayron de facto abstained from participation in this dispute. The only really uninvolved user, Wee Curry Monster expressed an opinion that the issue should be analyzed by an uninvolved admin. In connection to that I would appreciate if some admin analysed this incident in details. I am ready to present all additional evidences upon request. In addition, I have to return to another issue: my post has been deleted during this discussion[[36]], and that was supplemented with an insulting edit summary. In connection to that, I would like to know if I have to report this case separately, or it can be considered as pa part of this story?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that there is a bizarre content dispute here. Tentontunic, Collect and Vecrumba are trying to portray the forces that fought against the United States during the Vietnam War as "Communist Terrorists", an anachronistic reference to the Cold War terminology abandoned by the U.S. in 1972 (!) While there are editors who defend POV definitions, it is rare to find any insisting on interpretations of history that were abandoned decades ago. TFD (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would love it if you represented my position accurately. Tha above claim with regard to me is false, and is a straw man argument at best. I invite anyone at all to look at my edits on the article and say if there is any sign that I believe anything other than that WP policies and guidelines should be followed. Saying an editor said something which he did not say is a teensy bit iffy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the content dispute should be resolved via talk page discussions, RSN, NPOVN, NORN and RfCs. What we have here is a conduct issue, concretely, a user deleted the content they disliked, despite the fact that it was properly sourced (according to the RSN discussion), and neutral (according to NPOVN). This situation poses a serious danger for Wikipedia, because it demonstrates how current system can be gamed to remove the content that is disliked by just few Wikipedians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of your comment, Collect commented inside of a minute of when you did, so I think we can safely chalk that up to an honest mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As this revision shows [37], the text was successfully added to the page, so its accidental removal due to the edit conflict is highly unlikely. I never faced such a glitch before. However, if Collect openly and clearly explained that the removal has been done unintentionally, it would be sufficient for considering this part of the incident resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul - try AGF someday. I did not intentionally remove anyone's comment at all, nor would I. You assumption of bad faith is in line with your posts about me, however. Kindly stop. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find Paul's statement "This situation poses a serious danger for Wikipedia, because it demonstrates how current system can be gamed to remove the content that is disliked by just few Wikipedians" somewhat ironic, given the massive deletion of sourced content without concensus, as discussed here, here, here and here. This matter ought to be referred to the Arbitration Committee to sort this mess out. --Martin (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Chumchum7 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Starting with disclosure, afaik I've never had anything to do with Tentontunic, nor have I had anything to do with the 'Communist Terrorism' article. I have interacted both with Martin and Paul Siebert, primarily at the 'World War Two' article. Unless I'm mistaken, it appears that this topic on Tentontunic opened by Paul Siebert is a continuation of their interaction from an earlier, still unfinished, topic on Paul Siebert opened by Tentontunic at administrator EdJohnston's Talk. So it's difficult to constructively chime in while these two topics are open at the same time. As such, the two should be merged in some way, in a new place, before analysis is undertaken and conclusions are drawn. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the claim that I am "deeply involved." My position has had little to do with content, and a lot to do with WP policies and guidelines which are violated on a regular basis. Mr, Siebert misses no opportunity to levy the "involved" charge at me, and I am getting a tad tired of it - it is done to discredit anyone who posts independent comments on the article talk page, and is getting tiresome in the extreme. Counting edits on Communist terrorism for example finds Siebert with 60 edits, Tentontunic with 60, and so on -- with my total a huge 8 (primarily not all that major). For the talk page. Siebert and TFD dominate by a huge margin: Paul Siebert (692), The Four Deuces (515), Justus Maximus (325), AndyTheGrump (266) ,Tentontunic (199) and me at a modest 168 - virtually all about WP policies (see [38] where TFD insists that every part of an article must be sourceable to a single source, for an example). And [39] and many other places where he asserts that folks who call themselves "communist" and who commit "terrorist acts" can not be called "communist terrorists." That I demur with the requirement that any article be sourceable to a single source does not make me "involved" as anything other than a backer of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Paul Siebert and TFD, on the other hand, provide the huge majority of material on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just added up the amount of material added on the talk page in last 499 edits -- Paul has contributed 98K thereto, Second is Vecrumba at 35.5k. Third is TFD at 25.5K roughly. Fourth is Tentontunic at 24.5K. Fifth is Martintg at 13.8K. I do not even make the cut at 8K. Paul + TFD = 123K+. (over 60%) Vecrumba, Martin, and TTT add up to 73K. (under 40%) Collect (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WRT being an active editor - my last edit to the article was [40] on 3 April 2011. I am willing to have anyone at all who is uninvolved look at that revert. My immediate previous edit was [41] on 12 Dec 2010. Again I invite any neutral party to examine that revert (adding "citation needed" to every noun and adjective in the lede did seem a bit pointy). My prior edit [42] on 29 Nov 2010 seem to have aroused Paul's ire. I ask anyone to state with a straight face that cutting an article from 30K to 3K is not a "deletion" :). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Annually renewed series of group/role accounts; newest, User:Psyc3330 w11, has just been reported at UAA

Somebody reported this a couple of months ago, and the discussion just dwindled off without any kind of resolution. If we are going to allow the creation of group/role accounts by anybody claiming to be a class of college students, then we need to explicitly say so. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking the account outright would certainly not be productive nor good for our public image. However, if we can get in contact with the professor leading that class, and perhaps explain to them Wikipedia's policy regarding role accounts, it might have a better outcome. It's clear they're not interested in notices on their talk page, at least for the moment, so we might have to try another route to get in contact with someone of authority. elektrikSHOOS 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference, previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Apparent annual creation of role accounts for a class assignment. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, someone else should take a look at Psyc3330 w11's recent page moves and fix the titles. Many have parentheticals after the title with no space between (see Memory(self-related), which I've fixed, and Memory(social interactions), which I have not) and need to be moved to better titles. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the second one you mentioned. elektrikSHOOS 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the name/email/phone number of the prof who runs the class, email me if you want it. Passionless -Talk 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, could you email them directly and let them know about this discussion? It's not going to go anywhere if they're not even aware it's happening. elektrikSHOOS 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent him an email asking for him to take part here, I hope it works. Passionless -Talk 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all-- happy to see that the contributions from my yearly Memory course have generated a number of positive comments. My emphasis with the class has been on generating quality content on topics that are lacking or in serious need of expansion, and to do so within the highly constrained period of time available to us. Hopefully the end result has outweighed any concerns associated our unintentional violations of protocol. We continue to improve our adherence to policy as we learn about it, though, to be honest, there is a fine balance between the rewards of contributing (which are very real for the students) and costs of investing time/effort learning the rules and how to adhere to them (which are more salient for me as the instructor). Regarding the primary issue at hand, if we continue to contribute in the future, we will try to find a way to use individuals accounts that isn't too onerous. --User:Psyc3330_Prof —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, you have it spot on. I don't think anyone was concerned with the quality of the content other than minor nitpicky concerns – I don't think any serious Wikipedian would shun positive contributions to the project. The biggest issue addressed was the use of a role account, which isn't allowed under Wiki policy. However, since it appears you'll be addressing that concern, it appears all is well.

In general, I'd refer you to Wikipedia:School and university projects which has a helpful guideline of what is and is not allowed as it pertains to school and university classes. It also contains several contacts to people who are more than willing to answer questions and help facilitate projects. elektrikSHOOS 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You could always create a number of accounts named "Psyc3330 w<some year> <some number>" based on the number of students in your class on any given year. Tracking them all would be fairly simple, then, either manually or using RSS feeds (like [43], which is terribly huge 'cuz I've been writing comments on this page). Creating the accounts themselves won't be too difficult; you can either request the number you need or we can grant you an account creator flag so you can do it yourself (normally only a certain number can be created per day per IP address, to avoid abuse).

As far as learning the rules goes, it's something that you, as the professor, will probably want to do, but don't worry too much about it with the students. It seems like anything they might select to write about will pass our inclusion guidelines easily and we always enjoy good content, so anything that needs fixing (to comply with our less-intuitive rules) can be flagged as such. You'll just need to make sure that your students don't see such templates on their articles as an attack on their writing--we flag things we identify as issues so that people can correct them, not to assign blame.

If you have any other questions, Psyc3330_Prof, feel free to continue this thread, request help by adding {{help me}} to your talk page, or ask me on my talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all very helpful. Thanks. --User:Psyc3330_Prof —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

Violation of WP:Consensus at Titanic (1997 film) article

Resolved

 – Resolved per Flyer22.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Ring Cinema continues to insist that there is no consensus regarding a recent dispute we have been engaged in at the Titanic (1997 film) article, and steadily tries to get his version into the lead in part...or in whole. Per the Manual of Style (film) discussion, I objected not only to his the placement of the material but to the wording as well, and sought consensus as to whether or not his version of the lead is better. In the Manual of Style (film) discussion, consensus was reached, and is further displayed in the Towards a consensus section...with yet another editor weighing in and supporting the previous version of the lead. Today, I tweaked the lead,[44][45] per concerns from an IP (two IPs, but likely the same person) that there was some weasel wording going on. Though I tweaked the lead, I left it as the consensus version with just slightly different wording. After my tweaks, Ring Cinema showed up to "tweak" it further, but by adding back in his disputed version of the lead, just lower. Not only did I dispute that wording of the Academy Award nominations information in the Manual of Style (film) section and sought consensus to get it changed away from that, another editor objected to the wording at the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section. I reverted Ring Cinema, per the consensus on the talk page and his wording being confusing and not specific enough.[46][47] He reverted me on the grounds of his version being "perfectly clear", despite the concerns raised. He also removed the fact that Titanic became the highest-grossing film of all time on the grounds that it is misleading...even though the wording says "became," not "is," and is noted lower in the article as well, and is stated in both places that it was surpassed as the highest-grossing film of all time. The lead still makes clear that the film was the highest-grossing until Avatar, so that is not a main concern of mine.

I firmly believe that Ring Cinema continues to revert me for personal reasons -- a past debate we got into on the same article, which turned very heated and nasty (our first big dispute with each other at the article). I cite policy and guidelines. But all he cites is his own preferences, basically WP:ILIKEIT. He reverts me and then accuses me of WP:OWN, when I follow policy and guidelines, such as following the film style guideline and maintaining the consensus version of the lead. He even reported me to an administrator, who clearly told him that I was not owning the article and that he should give up on his version of the lead if he could not convince others to support it.[48] Any time an IP or regular editor makes an edit because of dissatisfaction with the lead, Ring Cinema uses this as an excuse to reinsert his version, either in part or in whole. I feel that this is a clear violation of WP:Consensus and senseless edit warring. I clearly disputed the wording he recently added back, which is part of the consensus discussion. Yet Ring Cinema says the consensus was not about that -- even though consensus supports the previous version either way -- and that there is no consensus[49], despite seven editors being against his version. This was/is not a straw poll. Seven editors gave valid reasons for their objections to his version. Of course, I responded to the "no consensus" bit.[50] We have tried talking this out with each other plenty of times, but it always leads into arguments of belittling and the like. Administrative intervention is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this process and I don't ignore consensus. Flyer22 has tempted the boundaries of WP:OWN in regard to the Titanic article for some time and this complaint is another example of her efforts in this regard. Her version of the situation is tendentious at best. There's no solid consensus on this matter, although we have three or four viewpoints about how to handle the lead section. What seems to have annoyed her was my offer of a compromise edit that tried to accommodate the viewpoints expressed. She immediately accused me of bad faith. There were some criticisms of my draft, but I believe I answered them adequately and the chore of finding a solution fell mostly to me, Flyer22 and BettyLogan. Flyer complained to EdJohnston about our continued work on it and he pointed out that we were working toward a consensus. Subsequently, Betty expressed her agreement with my position, at least in part. That indicates that my compromise offer might be most acceptable. In any event, I repeatedly asked Flyer22 to offer her own compromise and she refused with further misplaced accusations of bad faith and warring. In fact, I'm simply trying to include the extant views, including hers. If an editor won't offer a compromise and won't accept any editing of their contributions, what can other editors do? There is plenty of middle ground here to recognize the various reasonable viewpoints. That's been my approach and I think that's what we're supposed to be doing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To other editors, please read the above and look through the discussions and links. The only one who has accused me of WP:OWN is Ring Cinema. His accusations are not valid anywhere in my edits. But my accusations toward him are, I feel. He is currently violating WP:Consensus by changing the lead partially back to his disputed version. Further, as I stated above, and as shown now in his reply, he continues to insist that there is no consensus, despite seven editors being against his version. He is the only one for it. Now he changes "no consensus" to "no solid consensus." As I stated in two places now: "[H]ow many more editors does it take to declare consensus if this is not a straw poll? Would we still be having this discussion if 10 editors had agreed on the same thing? How about 18? We simply don't have that many people weighing in on this matter, and must take what consensus has been given." I did not go to EdJohnston first. Ring Cinema did. I only went to EdJohnston to defend myself against Ring Cinema's WP:OWN accusation. But either way, EdJohnston agreed that I was not violating WP:OWN. Betty is one of the editors who supports the previous version of the lead. And in the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section, she also quite clearly expresses concern regarding Ring Cinema's Academy Awards nominations wording. If Ring Cinema were "simply trying to include the extant views, including [mine]," he would not be insisting on keeping such confusing and inadequate wording. What "seems to have annoyed" me about Ring Cinema's arguments is that they are never based in guidelines or policy, he continues to insist that WP:Consensus means everyone must be satisfied, that I must offer a compromise in any case, and acts as though I have never compromised. Not to mention...he is constantly using any objection to some part of the lead to add back in material he knows is disputed (such as now). That is what has annoyed me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Give it to me in one sentence or less: What is the dispute here? It's possible that the lack of response is due to a tl;dr error. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just read the entire talk page for Titanic and I think I can summarize for you Ultraexactzz:

• There was a dispute about what should go into the lead of the article.
• Consensus went strongly with an approach not favoured by Ring Cinema (talk · contribs).
• On the talk page, Ring Cinema filibustered. At first he adopted the pretence that consensus was with him and now asserts that there is not a consensus.
• Concurrent with the dispute, there has been edit-warring over the lead which lead to a page protection; the edit-warring continues.

CIreland (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel that my initial comment was too long. I looked at a few other cases here, and saw that those sections were initially one or two paragraphs as well. Some were even longer than that once others started to weigh in, but the administrators were still able to see the issue and take action. If a summary is needed in only one sentence, my first sentence sums it up. But there was no way I could adequately describe and back up my complaint without most of the detail and reference links that followed that first sentence. CIreland sums it up well enough, though. WP:Consensus is a policy that should be followed. Seven editors are for the version prior to Ring Cinema's recent alteration of the lead. And if seven editors to one is not consensus, what is? Right now, it's like consensus is not determined unless Ring Cinema says so and is satisfied. We need the article to be at its most stable, and less disputed, and that is the version that most editors are okay with. The discussions going on right now about it are in the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section and the Towards a consensus section. In the latter, two editors have reaffirmed their positions -- the lead all seven editors agreed on is best...but perhaps without weasel wording. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the facts are misstated here. I haven't ignored any consensus and I haven't filibustered. I left it to BettyLogan's judgement about when or if my compromise draft should remain in place. When she moved it, I didn't interfere. There are two elements to the compromise I put forward: the placement of the film's awards information and the specific phrasing. Betty agreed with me on the phrasing but not on the placement. I'm acting consistent with that. I'm quite sure I have observed the niceties regarding the straw poll that EdJohnston said seemed to be 5-3, which is not a very strong consensus and worth further discussion. Flyer refuses to participate despite my repeated offers that she offer her own preferred compromise draft. In what way does this go outside best practice? As far as I know, I'm doing what a good editor is supposed to do. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is the post where BettyLogan indicated her agreement with me: "I think the record nature of the achievement should be "brought out" more regardless of whether the information is relocated; you are correct on that point. Personally I'm even open to moving the information up the lead, although not to the first paragraph since I think the first paragraph should solely define the film. I think it could be incorporated into the second paragraph ahead of the production information, since the box office/oscars are definitely more prominent information than the background production info. Is that something both you and Flyer would contemplate? Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)" --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The facts are not misstated at all. Any editor can simply look over the matter and see what is going on. CIreland read through the entire talk page and pretty much stated the same thing I stated...except in lesser words. You state that you haven't ignored any consensus, when, clearly, you have -- stating that seven editors to your one is not consensus and is a straw poll. No, seven editors opposing your version with valid reasons is not a straw poll, and don't even act as though EdJohnston backs you up that there is no consensus. He did not seem to notice that six editors were already in agreement. You already stated that consensus must satisfy all editors, which is just laughable and is not how Wikipedia works. You keep stating that Betty agreed with you on the phrasing just because she didn't object to it. No, it is not agreement unless it is made clear that she agreed. You keep sidestepping the fact that Betty also stated the problems with your phrasing, suggesting that the previous phrasing was best, which you shrugged off. Betty has also recently stated that the stable/consensus version of the lead should be reinstated. You keep saying I refuse to participate just because I won't let up on my preference for the lead, which is also laughable. I stand by the consensus version; it's as simple as that.

And as for Betty's quote that you just cited, she did not agree with you to have the placement at the top of the lead. She never went back on her support of the consensus version. She only stated that she was open to having it higher as a compromise! She clearly still had a preference for the version I supported and still support, and stated that it is the superior version. In either regard, you are not bringing out "the record nature of the achievement" more prominently by removing specific mention that Titanic was nominated for 14 Academy Awards and won 11. You are making it just like any of the many films out there with your "equaled records" wording, considering that plenty of films have equaled records in nominations or wins. You are currently understating Titanic's success and leaving the success ambiguous, as "equaled records" does not specify anything. The matter of the fact is that seven editors are for the version I support, while you are the only one against it. Uh, yes, consensus was achieved. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm afraid you have it wrong on EdJohnston, since he said it was not an strong consensus: " A vote of three out of five is not terribly convincing as a consensus. If you can shift that one way or the other, you might get somewhere. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)" 2) Subsequently Betty made the remarks I posted above, which clearly states that she was looking for middle ground on both placement and phrasing ""I think the.. achievement should be "brought out" more...; you [Ring] are correct on that point. Personally I'm even open to moving the information up the lead." 3) You don't seem to know what's in my edit. I am including the information on 14 and 11, which are both record-tying. No other film can make that claim. 4) You are wrong that I am understating Titanic's awards success. I'm stating it precisely, without any peacock language. 5) I am the only one taking my position? But Betty agrees with me, so that's wrong, too. So that's five significant errors in the space of about a dozen lines. Is that really what your complaint is about? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm afraid you have it wrong on EdJohnston, since he did not agree with you that there is no consensus and was citing three out of five. There is no three out of five. There is seven to one. 2) While Betty made remarks that she was looking for middle ground, she did not agree with you to place the information in the first paragraph and also criticized your phrasing. The criticism is there in the Redundancy in the introduction, awards and success section for all to see. And she has clearly stuck by a preference for the the lead I support. 3) I do seem to know what you are including in your edit. You are not including information on 14 and 11, since 14 and 11 is not specifically stated. "Equaled records" is what is stated, which other films can make claim to. 4) I am right that you are understating Titanic's awards success for exactly that very reason, as another editor recently stated pretty much the same thing. It's not peacock language to specifically state the number of nominations and awards. In fact, it is clearer, as four editors (myself included) have stated, and it showcases Titanic's success a lot better. 5) Stop saying Betty agrees with you. Do I have to ask Betty to come in here and speak for herself? Betty does not support your version of the lead. That's true. She offered a compromise, which neither of us accepted. She was open to that compromise, but does not support your version of the lead, and has criticized your phrasing. So that's five significant errors how exactly? Yeah, I thought so. My complaint is clear from this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the dispute, allow me to state it succinctly: Should the article on the film Titanic include in the lead the fact that it tied two records for Academy Awards, and, if so, in which paragraph? So there are two aspects: what information to include and where to include the information. I hope that helps. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this is not the place to ask other editors on how to build the article. And as for tying records, your version doesn't even clarify. Stop diverting attention away from the matter at hand -- your claiming that there is no consensus when seven editors dispute your version. All you have shown here is your belief that consensus is not achieved unless you agree with it, and that you must always be right. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I may be reading this wrong, then, but it appears to be a content dispute. The sole area where administrator intervention may be profitable is page protection, but the page is already protected. What specific administrator action are you looking for, here - a third opinion, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Have alternative forms of dispute resolution been sought? Such as a request for comment?--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The article actually isn't currently locked. But on the matter of disputes, I don't view this as simply a content dispute, but rather a matter of WP:Consensus. This is a policy which should be followed unless new consensus is achieved. I mean, it's pretty much like CIreland stated above. I'm looking for that policy to be enforced. Surely, seven editors to one, opposing with valid reasons, is consensus. There is only one editor continuously disputing the version that all other editors have agreed on. What is the point of dispute resolution when editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film have already been brought in and have agreed to one version of the lead? I am asking for the article to be returned to its stable, less disputed version -- this one (before the IPs' weasel-wording objections) -- so that any changes one wants made to the lead after that must be worked out first. To go against consensus, one must achieve new consensus. There has been no consensus for the current version of the article. It makes sense to me, as editor Betty recently stated in the Towards a consensus section, that we return to the stable/consensus version and then work out the kinks from there. Also in that section, Betty has offered a new compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What is an editor in my position to do? I have shared here the views of other editors which show that my position is joined by others, yet Flyer22 continues to erroneously state that it never happened. As I've demonstrated, she doesn't have her facts right and she offers nothing to support her claims of bad faith. Simply because she complained doesn't imply that she's correct. I repeatedly asked her to propose a compromise, but she claims it's merely "antagonistic." Do I have any recourse when she offers nothing but intransigence? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not adhered to the views of others. Others state their views, and then you desperately try to hold onto yours, like now, with the lead and reinserting part of a version that is disputed. Yes, it is disputed; I disputed it, and three other editors expressed concerns with it. I am not erroneously stating anything. It is a fact that the version of the lead I support is the consensus version. It is a fact that you are the only editor continuously disputing the consensus version and never offering up any valid reasons for your stances other than preferring it. As I demonstrated above, your "facts" are wrong. One editor above read through the entire talk page and saw the exact same thing I saw, that I complained about here. And what do you do? Go to that editor's talk page and complain about his comment, insisting he read it wrong. No, everything must always be your way and you are never wrong. That is what I and others have to constantly deal with in regards to you. We must compromise with you, and if we don't, consensus does not exist. That's absurd! And is not the way Wikipedia works. I don't have to propose a compromise if I prefer the article a certain way and have achieved consensus for that version. Maybe you need another editor to inform you of what WP:Consensus entails and that every editor is not always happy with achieved consensus, not always or even the majority of the time. You are antagonistic because you proceed to insist that I must make you happy and that if I don't, I am a bad editor. You continue to state "Flyer, you must compromise" even after consensus has already been achieved. That is why you are antagonistic. That and your belittling. You beat a dead horse and can never accept things as they are. The lead should be returned to its less disputed version. Or Betty's new compromise should be initiated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting you mention Betty's compromise. I have already accepted her compromise. I accept your offer. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You must not be speaking of her new compromise, where she suggests that both our versions be merged into the lead -- the exact number of Academy Awards nominations and wins and the "equaled" information. If you are speaking of that compromise, I don't see where you have accepted it on the talk page. If you are speaking of her previous compromise, you already know I rejected that (and you didn't accept it back then either), so bringing it up and saying you support it does not help matters. What helps matters is agreeing to her latest compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: The dispute is now resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible POV pushing of gay image in Kiss

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

Content discussion really needs to take place on the talk page, not on AN/I. This should have never been brought here.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here; see my comment below. FYI, Wikiwatcher1, it takes two to edit war. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by User:Wikiwatcher1

Page: Kiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Problem: Edit warring over image and placement
Goal: Prevent continual POV edits and keep the article neutral.
Diffs of edit warring

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
  

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] including an RfC and comments on User's talk page:(see bottom, "allegations" and again, "Notice of COI report.

The user has violated numerous guidelines, some very serious, besides edit warring. See Talk:Kiss. His comments and edits should be reviewed - otherwise they may set a precedent relying on PC fear tactics to push non-neutral images, in addition to Gaming the system.
Another editor has restored his image and even posted a "final" warning template on my talk page, a clear misuse of such warnings under the circumstances. Some neutral reviewers would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert in the first place? If you don't like it, don't go to the page. Simple as that. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I contributed substantially to the article and added many sources (article before I worked on it.) I have never, even in this matter, attempted to express "ownership," just simple Wikiwatchfulness over corrupting edits. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the dispute is about making the same-sex kiss "too prominent" in the article. It could be redundant, given the heartwarming embrace of Leonid "Chuckles" Brezhnev and his buddy from East Germany. Also, being a classic-cartoon watcher (how could you tell?) it seems to me there's something missing from the article, and that is the "Insulting kiss" which Bugs Bunny used to plant on Elmer Fudd all the time. That's a bit of antiquity, but WB didn't make it up: They got it from a Charlie Chaplin movie. So I have to figure it was already old even when Chaplin did it. The article is currently protected, though, thanks to this bickering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Brezhnev kiss clearly tries to Push a pov about Communists. Put in Jesus and Judas instead.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. You have my support. I added it as a photo image since the original editor/uploader posted a much more radical illustration image, and this photo was added as a compromise. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The earlier AN3 report was closed as not actionable. The article has been full-protected for five days. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, and an RfC is underway on the talk page. Nothing to see here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

for clarification purposes, just so I don't admit myself to a mental institution, this is closed, right? Dusti^*poke* 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Think so.... I love how no one has responded to my to my observation and as a Side note I thought this whole thing revolved homoeroticism in the pictures of Kiss (band) when I read the thread... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"...just simple Wikiwatchfulness over corrupting edits"... Did Wikiwatcher really write that? Are we all going to turn into rampant homosexuals after seeing a picture of two men playing tonsil-hockey? (apart from those of us who already are rampant homosexuals of course...) Is this 2011 or 1950? This of course begs the question - if Wikiwatcher thinks that this sort of smut (LOL) corrupts, and yet he actively seeks it out, what is it doing to him? I'd suggest for his own sanity he should look at other topics instead (or even watch cartoons, as Bugs suggests - except that even these are full of subliminal homo-eroticism if you look hard enough, I'm told). Wikipedia doesn't need 'watchers' against corruption, thanks all the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh, you don't know the half of it, chummer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote corrupting edits, not images. The article is (was) a neutral, well-sourced and widely-viewed coverage about the subject. But when an editor drives by and posts a non-neutral image "in your face," (as another edit described it,) in a location where it does not belong, that's my definition of a "corrupting edit." For support of why it's "non-neutral" by all guidelines, read the user's own comments and edit rationales.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see about the kisses is not the gender of the kissers but the POV about what type of kiss it is. The homosexual couple currently labeled "Affectionate kiss", is an open-mouthed kiss that strikes me as more lustful; indeed, in the diffs presented it was initially subtitled "Tongue kiss". A grandma kissing her grandson on the top of the head is a fine example of an "Affectionate kiss", and I think that a big open-mouthed tonguing should be labeled for what it is, with affection being shown as something less carnal. Which is not to say that a gay couple sharing an affectionate kiss should not be our image, just that this isn't that image.

As to changing Communists to Judas, I think the point of what an article like this would be advised to convey is that there are more than baby kisses, Wedding day kisses, and porn kisses, nor whether or not we show a homosexual kiss (of course it is POV not to in an article that has a dozen photos), but that there are many cultures where males kiss affectionately without a hint of eros or romance (not just Communists, but including them—would you prefer Muslims?), and that there is a counterintuitive "Judas kiss", as in the expression "kiss of death". In other words, show all of the above, but more accurately labeled. Abrazame (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page

Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anglo Pyramidologist is a recent account whose main contributions have been to "identity" topics: British Israelism (the theory that the British descended from the "lost" tribes of Israel and the Jews are imposters), Young earth creationism (the theory the earth is only 6,000 years old), Christian identity (a "racialised" understanding of Christianity) and the British National Party (a party that speaks for the "indigenous" population of the British Isles). His comments at Talk:British National Party#The BNP and animal welfare are abusive:

• Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie....
• . Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views. Do you have a conscience?
• All the most evidence Multiculturalist is a troll, he is now pointing out other posters spelling errors - just to wind them up or attack them. This is despite his OWN posts are filled with poor spelling and punctuation, for example he spelt nearby as 'near by', above, there should be no space between the two. Also going to his talk page, reveals he has mispelled 'terminology' as 'teminology' (23:30, 14 July 2010), in fact i counted more than 10 spelling errors on his page in total. So not only is 'Multiculturalist a troll, he is also a hypocrit and can't spell English perfectly himself.
• Also look at Multiculturalists sources on the animal welfare nonsense hes posting - Seachlight, a well known anti-fascist magazine written by communists. How is that a neutral source on the BNP?
• Also why are his only sources from cranky communists like searchlight? Kind of ironic Multiculturalist above tries to smear the BNP by linking them to murder, when he quotes from communists. The communists under stalin killed millions of innocents.

Anglo Pyramidologist has been asked to avoid personal attacks on the talk page: "Also, you need to avoid personal attacks." He was also given a template message on his talk page.[55]

This discussion falls below the standards of etiquette that editors should follow and I recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be blocked until he agrees to civil discourse.

TFD (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the user's behavior is unacceptable. I've left a final warning on the his talk page.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that Anglo Pyramidologist is not the only editor who opposes Multiculturalism's changes. Both sides are being unnecessarily dogmatic here, possibly because of the strong feelings that the BNP engenders, but Anglo P does not seem to be behaving outrageously. His edits suggest that he holds a world view which I find, shall we say, less than sympathetic. But I don't see any egregiously bad behaviour here. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a vandal on the BNP page who is now removing local election details, and secondly is posting sources about the BNP from Searchlight a communist source. This source is biased and not neutral. I have made no personal attacks against this individual vandal, he also attempted to wind me up by saying i cannot spell (and is basically trolling me). I'm not sure why i got the warning, i've done nothing wrong. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is NOT a "communist source", and describing it as such has just let slip your biased POV - kudos. GiantSnowman 16:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight was founded by a communist - Gerry Gable, furthermore it is backed financially by the Communist Party of Britain and Young Communist League. Here is a website exposing the Communist basis of Searchlight - http://searchlightexposed.com/. Searchlight in their protests also have communist banners, they display these publically. You can find hundreds of videos on youtube which show this - so not sure what your agenda is here denying these links. It has nothing to do with biased POV. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, wrong again - Searchlight was actually founded by two Labour MPs (Reg Freeson and Joan Lestor), as well as anti-fascist and YCL member Maurice Ludmer. Gable is merely the publisher, and hasn't been a member of the Communist Party since 1962. Yes, it's got a left-wing lean, as anti-fascist activity tends to do, but that doesn't make it 'communist' - so describing it as such is wrong, and once again shows your biased POV that you seem unable to remain neutral when editing these kind of articles. GiantSnowman 17:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes. Anglo Pyramidologist has continued personal attacks against another editor event after receiving a final warning from an administrator.[56] In fact he is continuing that attack here by calling another editor a "vandal". TFD (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in a content disupte - I'm completely uninvolved. Never edited any of the articles in question, never encountered either editor before. I was merely pointing out that Anglo Pyramidologist clearly has a POV when he edits these articles - which has manifested itself through personal attacks against those who oppose him. GiantSnowman 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD is continuing to make false accusations against myself, so i have reported his posts. Please stop with the personal attacks. I only called someone else a vandal AFTER THEY DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION on the BNP's page in the local elections. That's what vandalism is - deleting material. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that Anglo Pyramidologist clearly has a POV when he edits these articles, i don't have POV, all i pointed out is that quoting COMMUNIST sources on a BNP (nationalist) page is not neutral. In fact, most other posters agreed with me on this - if you view the BNP's talk page. Searchlight is not a neutral source, so anyone quoting from it is baised. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: the user mutlticulturalist is deleting MORE peoples content on the BNP page - 86.10.119.131 (talk) (150,617 bytes) (Undid revision 422528221 by Multiculturalist (talk) dont delete peoples material bro. That's not even me this time he deleted content from. As was pointed out above many have a problem with Multiculturalist editing the BNP page. He is biased (look at his name). The BNP is a nationalist party which opposes multiculturalism, so how is a user with 'multiculturalist' as a name percieved to be neutral? He also left me personal attacks all over the BNP talk page, but the mods don't take action against him ever.

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up.

So most people know, this AFD has been the subject of excessive canvassing (on facebook and associated blogs) by the subject and sockpuppeting. Furthermore the article was created by the owner of the con just look at the upload and declaration and who started the article   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

India v. South Asia

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Wikipedia community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing [57] [58], and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed [59] in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others [60] [61], and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if [you were newbies but given that both of you have thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the years, it is a clear case of gaming the system. You should be topic banned from editing articles on Indian history. I see that revert/edit warring has been a pattern with Athenean as is reflected by his block logs. More recently this person received an interaction ban as a part of Wikipedia:ARBMAC enforcement. A topic ban on Athenean will help us all keep the focus on improving articles in the limited time we have. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Zuggernaut, was not a part of the regular discussion on the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries page. He has an old gripe with me from the Talk:India page and was there in the "inventions and discoveries" discussion for only one purpose, and that was to oppose me. Unfortunately for him, he managed to confess said purpose in one of the rare posts he made on that page. Said he, crossing in the process the line between reality and fantasy several times:

"It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Wikipedia demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity ..."

This means, of course, that if I support/oppose something, Zuggernaut will naturally oppose/support it, on the logic that I am demonstrating my anti-India and pro-British bias. What "India vs. South Asia" has to do with it, beats me. If anything, "South Asia" is more American and international usage, Britain (still fondly remembering its Indian empire in the haze of an after dinner pipe and port) would likely go for "Indian." As for the real discussion that began on March 1, there were some regular discussants; these were: Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, SSeagal, Mdw0, Wikireader41, SpacemanSpiff, Mar4d. In this discussion, Zuggernaut made two appearances, both on March 1 (his first ones); once in a humorous vein and the other to (predictably) protest my tagging the article. He then disappeared for three weeks, while the regular discussants labored through all the permutations and combinations of words in the various proposed names. They considered stopping the "List of Indian inventions ..." at 1947, they considered Gunpowder Ma's proposal to create a new "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization," ... Predictably, Zuggernaut was absent from all those discussions. However, when I finally proposed a page move, Zuggernaut was the first one to register an "oppose," confessing, in the process, the real reason (quoted above) for his appearance.

He then canvassed. At first, in this somewhat provocatively worded post on the "Noticeboard of India related topics" in the hopes that putatively "Indian" editors there would naturally oppose a page move in which their beloved "India" was being deleted. When the editors there didn't bite, he appeared in this discussion, accompanied by music from the Twilight Zone, on the Talk:India page. His fellow conspiracy theorist there has meanwhile added an oppose vote as well, having been no part of the "India vs. South Asia" discussion.

Now for the page move and the votes. First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes—not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). In other words, we reasoned that the vote count among the regular discussants one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote.

Sadly, for Wikpedia there is now a type of editor, of which Zuggernaut is a good example, who spends his energies not in adding content (Zuggernaut has added precious little (read zero) to the "List of Indian invention and discoveries" page), or for that matter to the India page, but in holding forth every now and then on the deep ideological biases involved in the work of those who actually do add content, and in leaving no stone unturned in their path to help them trip. As the New York Times reported last year, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors left in 2010. I'm afraid that trend is only going to continue if Wikipedia doesn't stop a handful of disruptive editors from heeding the clarion call of their conspiracy theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut was mostly absent from and participated little in the discussion, realized too late that a consensus had crystallized and is now trying to undo community consensus via the noticeboard. I don't see any bad faith on the part of the users listed above, all has been only done after lengthy discussions taking over two weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Another tedious encounter with our modern-day Indian wiki-nationalists. Zuggernaut has arguably merited a page-ban for stalking Fowler - which is, self-admittedly, his entire reason for being there - and CarTick apparently lacks the ability to follow a coherent argument. Someone really needs to sort this out and deal with the issues of consensus-stacking, canvassing, harassment and disruption. Moreschi (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not Zuggernaut's first attempt at canvassing and will not be his last (there are at least two ANIs where this has been discussed), he has consistently used provocative language and posts to canvass his positions on WT:INB. The only reason he canvassed me (per Athenean's statement above) this time is because I had a mild disagreement with Fowler on this particular issue. I'm not entirely convinced that a name change is in order at the present time, although I can appreciate the arguments in favor. It's not a page ban that's needed but a topic ban that's required here. See the history on Talk:India where his proposal was rejected in September, then he comes back a few months later adding the same POV stuff in claiming that there was consensus in September, then in the face of complete opposition starts an RFC and keeps arguing the same points again and again. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't commented on the move discussion (and would oppose it actually), but this Zuggernaut Vs Fowler thing is getting a little bit out of hand. Though Fowler doesn't help things with his sharp remarks and pithy edit summaries, Zuggernaut's behaviour is getting tiresome - he has a pretty strong POV on this issue. He has even suggested that projects to distribute wikipedia articles offline in india, go through the contribution history of articles to check for "known editors who have a known POV issue". Read the whole thing - he is actually suggesting a "pre approved editor list" for india related wikipedia articles that are selected for distribution. It gives me the creeps. Apparently, if you are non-Indian and you dont agree with him, you dont count; and if you are an Indian and you dont agree with him you are a "Brown Sahib". --Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is time for a topic ban on zuggernaut. I have opposed the move proposal but it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of a proposal or on alternative titles when persistent POV pushers with an agenda are around. The persistent resurrection of topics that don't get consensus (see the Talk:India history pointed out by SpacemanSpiff above), the references to brown sabibs noted by Sodabottle (not, I am sorry to say, for the first time[62]), the long list of acronyms in the complaint above, these are all examples of an editor with a single minded agenda to insert his own POV into wikipedia. I suggest a topic ban on all articles related to Indian history. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

let us not forget the English nationalist POV pushed by Fowler. His edits across wikipedia promoting British East India Company, attempts to forecefully define Indian history to have started from English intervention and his recent attempts to separate Indian history from South asian history thus resorting to history revisionism requires a topic ban for Fowler as well. his relentless English nationalistic POV brings out the worst among other contributing editors. --CarTick (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen anything by Fowler&fowler during the move discussion that I recognized as pro-English POV pushing. Could you please provide relevant diffs if you argue for a topic ban? Huon (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

because he didnt do that. what he did in that move discussion was history revisionism. i am sure you didnt notice that! will provide evidences when topic ban is seriously considered. dont want to waste my time for nothing. --CarTick (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on your view that Fowler&fowler has an "English POV"? Because I don't know what this means in this context and I haven't seen any of it yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Zuggernaut does have a very strong POV on issues regarding India and the British. If you look at Talk:British Empire, about two thirds of archive 12 and most of archive 13 are filled with threads started by him or exacerbated by him trying to add information about famines in India and how they were completely the fault of the British. Back then he was also canvassing and forum shopping to try and get his way (at one point contacting the Ireland noticeboards to try and get them to comment on whether information about famines should be in the article). His POV is very clear when he makes comments such as "I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization" as a reason for including economic information about India in the British Empire article (seen in this thread). Notably when discussing this article he had another editor pegged as a British POV warrior, similar to fowler now. Zuggernaut has twice before used AN/I to try and censure other editors (search for "Zuggernaut" here and here, both of which were remarkable flops. The current disruption has been caused because he found this inventions article and objected to the move to South Asia, which is fair enough. However, he provided no solutions to the issue at hand, and it trying to maintain that the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries should include inventions from all over the Indian subcontinent/South Asia/India before 1947, and for all inventions from the Republic of India as well, going as far as to ask for sources calling ancient inventions Pakistani. I dislike the idea of a topic ban, as the user does make good contributions to some India articles; however there does seem to be some sort of need for it as the same behavioural patterns have continued until now. Perhaps just one relating to Indian/British history, under the discretion of an administrator or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• This remarkable bit of logic just appeared, "reliable sources consider IVC a part of India and per WP:Commonname, India equates to the Republic of India." I leave it up to others to make sense of this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• If others want to take the time to discuss this, I support a topic ban of Zuggernaut as there is plenty of reason to believe the nationalistic POV pushing will never end voluntarily. One clear example was a suggestion here (permalink) that text be added to Famine in India to say that due to his racist views, Winston Churchill had deliberately ignored pleas for emergency food aid and had left the population to starve. Despite the fact that the "refusal" was in 1943 at the height of World War II, Zuggernaut did not want to consider the possibility that the failure to ship food might have been influenced by the war—further than that, Z did not even want the war mentioned, saying "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion" (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That might sound displeasing to Churchill's supporters. but he seems within bounds to suggest that sentnence as i hope he had reliable references to back up his claim. however, the decision to include or exclude the sentence should depend on several other factors, WP:Due being one important. it is a content dispute and he clearly has a pro-Indian POV. what about other editors with pro-English and anti-Indian POVs? --CarTick (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• So, is a topic ban being planned for Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and, if so, how will it proceed? Will RegentsPark and Morsechi (and SpacemanSpiff?), being admins, take the initiative, or will they invite some other admin? Please let us participants here know what is being planned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) is indefinitely:

1. topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia.

2. banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.

3. subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages. Note to closing admin: this last measure is to be logged as an enforcement action of the probation listed at 3.

• Proposed. Interaction ban warranted after [63] & [64]. Enforcement of probation warranted after canvassing (note the wording for the lack of neutrality). The repeated POV-pushing warrants the topic ban and need for supervised editing - see other diffs in the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I suspect we may need more evidence presented in order to gain a consensus on this broad proposal, but my observations over the last few months have convinced me that some form of topic ban would be the only way to provide a stable editing environment. My above comment with timestamp "05:04, 30 March 2011" has one example of unhelpful POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose that he has pro-Indian POV (which i dont deny) can not be a reason for such broader bans. everyone comes with a bias. that he has no blocks logged indicates he has worked within the boundaries of wikipedia policies and guidelines. looks like an effort to get rid of a serious opposition to pro-English and anti-Indian POV pushers. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that Ncmvocalist is not acting in good faith? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • nope, i am not. please dont put words in my mouth. i just disagree with him. most of the ban proposers had fought with Zuggernaut in pro-English and anti-Indian camps in various talk pages and i dont expect them to be objective. so, i would say Ncmvocalist is one of the uninvolved here. we should consider where the opposition comes from. i dont want to accuse everyone of holding a grudge against Z. some are sincerely worried about the way Fowler vs Zuggernaut rivalry is playing out in various talk pages. i have my own reservations about Z but i dont think we have sufficient background for topic ban yet. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • i have such a bad memory. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey, Ncmvocalist and many others including myself were defending YellowMonkey. ncmvocalist was quite vocal in his defense. the RFC was filed by User:Yogesh Khandke over a block. Zuggernaut was there opposing YellowMonkey. therefore it is wrong to say Zuggernaut and Ncmvocalist have never interacted. just clarifying. --CarTick (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It appears that you have no idea what the meaning of uninvolved is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • My preference was to avoid losing the user's contributions from all areas of the project when the problems seem to be when he is editing in relation to these topics. But to take an example; arbitration examines the conduct of all involved parties, and as you are one of them in this case, your own conduct could be the subject of a finding of fact. Is it necessary to get to that point before the problem can be addressed through a binding voluntary agreement? If we want to think about blocks, to take you as an example again, your edit-warring in the mainspace ([65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]) was worthy of a block...but do you really want blocks to be used? These two ways of dealing with the issues are a last resort, and the restrictions I've proposed are to avoid the need for that in the future, particularly if in the case of the Zuggernaut, he can conduct himself more appropriately and provide useful contributions in other topics. Incidentally, having a POV is not the problem; what is a problem is when it is pushed in a way which is disruptive and inappropriate; the canvassing, the comments I linked to above which were directed to Fowler, and what Johnuniq has shared earlier, are just a few examples of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: This seems too harsh. The civility restriction I can agree with, and while we're at it we might consider a WP:1RR restriction to head off edit warring. However, I've seen his most recent interaction with me (on a naming proposal to end the debate that seemingly started all this) to be civil and in compliance with relevant policy. Obviously the consensus hasn't been judged yet, and I'd be curious to see what his attitude will be when/if the consensus is judged to be against his point of view on the matter. N419BH 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did consider 1RR, but I think it simply slows the edit-warring down to a point of exhausting everyone involved rather than resolving the underlying concern. That (to me anyway) seems pointless and will just exhaust precious time unnecessarily when it could be spent addressing the content issues. I'm not going to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable (I've been here far too long to try to meddle with what is destined to happen, be it an arbitration case, or more frequent usage of the blocking tool to prevent the problems). But at least after reading this discussion, nobody in the future can complain that there was a shortage of practical good faith proposals at the time (which is now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Support in light of Zuggernaut's response, which clearly indicates a total lack of understanding of the issues at hand and is full of wikilawyering. Enough. N419BH 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Limited Support: As I said above, Zuggernaut has done good work (a few GA's etc.) in some areas, and I don't wish to see him shut out of areas of editing unnecessarily. The topic ban range under 1 sounds feasible, although perhaps could be trimmed down to just British history, unless similar problems exist for other time scales. As for 2, I'm not sure if this will help. Fowler's not the only editor Zug's had these issues with, and frankly I don't think Fowler gives a damn (he can correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, Fowler works on many Indian related articles, so this may push Zuggernaut out of non-history areas as well. I'm not sure what 3 will work, although if it's creating a place where administrators can look over complaints that sounds good. As for 4, that seems to depend on 3. In the end, what I really wish for Zuggernaut to understand is that just because information he wants to place about how India's economy was destroyed, or how Churchill was racist, or how famines were caused by the British, was not added to the article due to other editors does not mean that the article is controlled by a British cabal, or that the editors involved are pro-English and anti-Indian. He should make sure he's not out on a mission to right great wrongs and fix the systematic bias of the wiki, and needs to understand that opposition to his pro-India edits does not mean a systematic bias is being enforced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Changed to support. As seen in his response below, Zuggernaut just doesn't understand what it wrong, and refuses to acknowledge he's violated guidelines on editing. His claim he doesn't know if he has violated canvass is (per his want to call things a spade) complete bullshit. A previous time he was accused of canvassing, he asked about it here, and was told that it was indeed canvassing. After that he made a request (section below that) to change the guideline to allow people to ask others to vote with them. He has even edited the actual guideline. Another user additionally noted in the discussion that he was forum shopping, which he has also done at the systematic bias page, and arguably has done with this and previous AN/I's. In summary, he has broken editing guidelines, and he knows it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• From my brief time spent looking at this problem and being involved at the list page, I'll support 2 (very strongly, as he's openly admitted wikistalking), 3 (clearly necessary), and 4. 1 is probably a little OTT for now, and can easily be implemented under 3 later if necessary. Best, Moreschi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 per my reasons above. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, and 4, particularly 2 due to odious wikistalking. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 3 without reservations. At this point this is a necessary measure, given the past behavior on various topics (Famine in India, India, British Empire etc etc). 4 is just a subset of 1, so I'm not sure it needs to be called out, but it has my support nevertheless. As far as 2 goes, I think it's necessary in principle, but the behavior is not restricted to F&f, so something broader would be preferred in terms of addressing the issue of wikistalking and not just interaction with one editor. That said, there's also the problem of one-way interaction bans (although there's no reason to make this a two-way ban currently) being that there's always the possibility of the perception of the banned party not being able to respond etc. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 and 3. (4 comes under 1) We all come here with our biases, but most of us learn to suppress the worst of them and work within the limitations wikipedia imposes on us. In the past, i had hoped Zuggernaut would change his ways and use his obvious talent to do some good work; But his disruptive behaviour far outweighs the article work he has done. I dont believe any editor who advocates censorship based on nationality, wikistalks, throws out insults like "brown sahib", "acting white" would be a net positive to India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am mentioned by name in the proposal, I won't express an opinion on Zuggernaut. I will say that Zuggernaut was not the only one accusing people of anti-India and pro-British bias; CarTick, too, on the Talk:India page was accusing me, and Chipmunkdavis as well, of such bias, repeatedly accusing me of having "sneaked in" the reference to the British East India Company in the lead, and making me out to be a 21st century lobbyist for the East India Company on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: For an amazing disregard for the dignity of other editors. For a shameless modus operandi of canvassing, race- and nationality-baiting, and bulldozing through painstakingly built consensus. For a lack of demonstrated self-improvement and compromise, revealing an incorrigible POV crusader attitude. Quigley (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support; Nationalist pov-pushing is incredibly destructive (it either wears down the productive editors, or it consumes all their time). bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor in question has not a single block, so their editing has been well within the confines of existing policies and guidelines. A case of canvassing (perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't) is not reason enough for what is essentially an "India" topic ban -- EVERYTHING relating to India is part of its history!!! Mentoring may be a better option, instead of drastic measures such as being proposed here. What is it with a community which would rather ban editors - because that is the easy way out! --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Z has a series of POV positions, if he looses them in one article he tries again elsewhere. Time for him to take a break for a period --Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Responses

Three policy violations have been cited for the ban. I will address each of them below.

1. POV pushing - As a part of my editing philosophy, I follow the essay on POV pushing, which says:

The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.

Since I have never knowingly violated 3RR and since I've now been sticking to 1RR as an editing philosophy, it is, by definition, impossible for me to push my POV in to articles. I would like to point out that all of the diffs and references made to my violation of this policy by those who want me banned are from talk pages.

2. Wikistalking - I had been thinking of setting up a new project about special India issues for several months. A diff from February shows this. Since I spend only a limited amount of time on Wikipedia per day, I never got around to doing this until March 4. In preparation of the creation of such a project proposal, I was searching Wikipedia for India-related articles that would come under this project. One such article amongst several others that I was able to locate was the List of Indian inventions and discoveries.

3. Canvassing - Per my colloquial usage of English, I am pretty sure that my notification on the India noticeboard is not "non-neutral" but I now see how other speakers of English variants might see it as non-neutral. I'm sorry about that.

Here's my general editing philosophy on Wikipedia:

• No edit warring, stick to 1RR
• Stick to WP:BRD
• Stick to all known Wikipedia policies and guidelines closely (no particular diffs to provide, just look at my entire edit history)
• If there is a policy or guideline that I have hitherto not been aware of and have violated, I apologize for doing so and I ensure that I abide by it in the future
• Calling a spade
• Be civil and polite as seen in GA success for Upanishads, GA success for Deshastha Brahmin, GA success for the Third Anglo-Maratha War

A friendly note to closing admin - here's what the banning policy says:

If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Pretty much everyone here who has participated in the ban discussion has been involved with the underlying dispute. Exceptions are Moreschi and N419BH. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Zuggernaut, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of uninvolved anymore than you understand the meaning of tendentious POV pushing (the page you're looking at is an essay and what you've cherry picked out of that part of the essay is not widely held by the community). Good intentions don't justify disruption, and similarly, the worst kind of disruption occurs on talk pages. These proposals are giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can contribute usefully in other areas without engaging in problematic conduct; perhaps this issue won't exist in areas you don't feel so strongly about, and perhaps in the future you can resist your temptation to push POV so strongly to the point of testing and exhausting the patience of so many of your peers. In any event, whether you voluntarily accept the restrictions as binding, or whether they need to be imposed on you involuntarily, is another question altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a response to the actual issue, such as the Churchill dispute that I mentioned above? Do you believe that it would be reasonable to state that a significant cause of a famine was Churchill's racism which led to him to deliberately ignore pleas for emergency food aid, without any mention of the fact that Churchill was fully occupied as one of the "big three" leaders fighting World War II, and might have had a number of issues competing for his attention? Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the editor's defence, people should read things such as this, for example. There are clearly reliable sources out there which put forward the view that Churchill was racist in regards to Indians. Or this which states: "Few statesmen of the 20th century have reputations as outsize as Winston Churchill's. And yet his assiduously self-promoted image as what the author Harold Evans called "the British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization" rests primarily on his World War II rhetoric, rather than his actions as the head of a government that ruled the biggest empire the world has ever known. Madhusree Mukerjee's new book, Churchill's Secret War, reveals a side of Churchill largely ignored in the West and considerably tarnishes his heroic sheen." If the points raised in this and other reliable sources are accurate, then yes, this is a POV that is valid for inclusion in articles relating to the famine and Churchill himself. For the POV that you are asking about, you would of course need reliable sources to back up your assertions as to the reason for famine, etc. This clearly looks to me to be a case of an editor presenting information into articles that others don't want to see, and this as an attempt to censure said editor for wanting to do so. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying he was racist. The problem is Zuggernaut wanted to insert information in the article along the lines of "These Indians died because Winston Churchill was racist and withheld food from them", when in fact he no doubt had bigger things on his mind at the time, which Zuggernaut thought was tangential (as has been pointed out above). Besides, it's not based on this one incident, and the current report was caused by his complaint about a completely different article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Russavia: Mukherjee's book has been roundly criticized, both in the New York Times review by Joe Lelyveld and by Amartya Sen himself (quoted in the review). Churchill might or might not have been a racist, but his decision not to send emergency food rations to Bengal has other explanations. As Lelyveld says in his review (see full quotes in the Talk:India archives), Churchill's main scientific adviser, Lord Cherwell, was an astute man and had in fact anticipated many of the principles enunciated by Sen five decades later. Cherwell, was of the view that there was enough food, but it was being held back by unscrupulous hoarders (both among the farmers and the grain merchants) and profiteers, that it would be more effective policy (bringing speedier relief) to go publicly after the hoarders and profiteers than to divert rations from elsewhere (already strained by the demands of a global war). In other words, Churchill's culpability is by no means a historical fact. In spite of this, Zuggernaut wanted to insert two loaded sentences about it in the very distilled history section of the India page, which earlier didn't have anything about the Bengal famine or any other famine, or World Wars, I or II. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, Zuggernaut is here because he opposed moving List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. for reasons and motives i will never understand, User:Fowler&fowler suddenly decided a few weeks ago that Indian history is too confusing for him. what next Fowler? moving all the content from History of India to History of South Asia?. Zuggernaut, rightfully opposed that. i dont think it is a mistake in Z's part at all. He is one of the over 10 oppose votes. there are roughly equal number (may be more) of "oppose" and "support" votes. this is just to make the point, he is not in the minority.

now, talk about canvassing. I dont think User:Moreschi is here as an uninvolved editor. Here is the message] Fowler left in his talk page in the middle of a previous dispute in Talk:India page. From the message, one could reasonably conclude that they have a good wiki-relationship. Moreschi was just waiting for an opportunity and this ANI provided him the cover. he did this edit without even participating in the conversation. anyone who has the time to read the discussion page (at and until the time he made that edit or until now) can conclude that there is no consensus to remove any content from the article. Yes, Fowler was not explicit as Zuggernaut has been. --CarTick (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick: First, Zuggernaut is not here because he cast an oppose vote in the India vs. South Asia page move. Many editors opposed that move, include a handful that are now supporting Zuggernaut's topic ban. Zuggernaut is here because he chose to open an ANI thread in order to after some people (including me). Unfortunately, the plan backfired, because after months of opening similar ANI threads, Zuggernaut's pattern of editing on Indian history topics is becoming manifest. It is that pattern of editing that is being castigated here. Second, it's not a good idea, CarTick, to make up outlandish conspiracy theories and then treat them as fact. I merely welcomed Moreschi, who I had heard had left Wikipedia, back to active editing. I have always liked his firm opposition to all forms of nationalistic POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Please don't make wild connections in order to bolster you flimsy argument. If I had in fact intended to leave a coded message for Moreschi to intervene in the Talk:India dispute (whatever it was), I obviously didn't succeed, since Moreschi didn't intervene on the Talk:India page, but somewhere else, a few weeks later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, Zuggernaut is here because one of his traditional moves - complain about bias to ANI - has backfired. I supported the ban topic because i am tired of being accused of being a "brown sahib" if i oppose him and getting sick of attempts at censorship by nationalism. I have supported and opposed Zuggernaut's proposals in equal measure before. Fowler's attempt to change "India" to "South Asia" is nothing new. SBC-YPR made a [[Talk:History_of_India/Archive_4#Requested_move|proposal] to move "History of India" to "History of Indian Subcontinent" in 2009, for precisely the same reasons. I count atleast two other oppose voters - regents and spiff - in the inventions move discussion here. This should indicate even those people who sometimes support Zuggernaut's proposals are fed up with his actions--Sodabottle (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found Zuggernaut disagreeable in many occasions and I expect to disagree with him in the future. However, there really is no case for topic ban yet. here is why.

1. This ANI, as other would have us believe, does not appear to be frivolous. User:Athenean, User:Huon, User:S Seagal, User:Fowler&fowler, User:Mar4d, User:Gun Powder Ma, User:AshwiniKalantri and User:Shovon76 supported User:Gun Powder Ma's proposal. User:Zuggernaut, User:Wikireader41, User:Mdw0, User:Ohms law and User:Andrewa opposed it. 8 support votes and 5 oppose votes at the time the content was moced. 5th oppose vote by Andrewa was at 18:25, 27 March 2011. The content from the article was removed at 20:08, 27 March 2011. Gun Powder had created the South Asian List before the last two oppose votes. 1) there was no overwhelming consensus to remove content 2) it is conflict of interest to judge and execute the consensus by one of the highly involved editor, GunPowder. Z filed this report at 00:50, 29 March 2011. i am willing to buy the argument that the last two oppose votes happened late and it could be that GunPowder didnt notice it. now, i will let other uninvolved editors decide whether this is a frivolous thread. while everyone is upset about the frivolousness, nobody seems to care about the conflict of interest.
2. That Mukerjee's book got bad review at NYTimes review can not be an argument for exclusion. the book has made news across the world. one possible way to deal with this issue could have been to add both Mukerjee's book and also add the NY times book review and let the readers decide instead of censoring it. regardless of the merit of the case, the point is, in both cases, Churchil's racism and Indian list as extensivley discussed in this thread, Z had references that supported his POV and is not entirely wrong. I dont see any difference between the passionate defense of Churchill by some of the editors here and Z's passionate involvement in Indian history articles. POV is a POV.
3. Thanks for pointing out the History of India to History of Indian subcontinent move by another user. i would like to note here that Fowler wants India to be changed to South Asia (not Indian subcontinent) per the discussion page.
4. Calling users "Brown Sahib" or "acting white" is reprehensible. he could be warned in his talk page and if continued, even blocked to convey the message. now, Zuggernaut was not the only one acting uncivil. please see the discussion pages Fowler has participated. he was reprimanded by User:Shovon76 here.

In summary, when claims of POV pushing, frivolous ANI threads, uncivil comments and canvassing accusations are weighed in sum, there is really not sufficient background for topic ban yet. He was not even blocked once for either uncivility, edit warring or canvassing. i would recommend a formal warning, followed by a few blocks (if he repeats) before we even consider topic ban. as it stands, topic ban is too premature, early and exceedingly excessive. --CarTick (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to CarTick Shovon76, The issue is not whether Mukerjee's book is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition. Pretty much any trade paperback popular history or newspaper review meets Wikipedia's definition. However, sources in Featured Article have to be held to a higher standard. WP:RS say, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." A featured article, moreover, is required to report the consensus among scholarly sources, and in the absence of such consensus to report the controversy. Among the manifold scholarly sources on the Bengal famine of 1943, what is the consensus (if any) about the causes of the famine and where is Churchill's culpability in all of it? Mukerjee's book is not a scholarly book, it is a popular (trade) history. Even if it were a scholarly work, it is too recent to be a part of the scholarly debate. (Mukherjee has written no journal articles on this topic.) Besides, there is no record of Zuggernaut adding these details, indeed any details about the Bengal famine, to the History of India page. Since "History of India" is written in summary style, the causes of the Bengal famine (in contrast to a mention), might be WP:UNDUE in the first place, especially since many much worse famines are not mentioned. How then does Churchill's culpability belong to History of India's own summary, which—double distilled—forms the India page history section? If this is not WP:Main article fixation playing itself out in relentless POV-pushing, I don't what is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PS to CarTick Shovon76. As for the "reprimand" diff you provided, perhaps you should have also provided diffs for my reply and your more balanced response to the reply. The problem here is not one of incivility, but of something much more insidious and hard to deal with: relentless POV pushing, especially nationalistic. As someone said upstairs, it wears down other editors and even if it doesn't, it takes up all their time. There are sources out there these days for the wildest of assertions, and POV-pushers are good at cherry-picking one source, e.g. Mukherjee, and attempting to make it worthy of mention in a page in which both the topic and the decades of scholarly research in it have thus far gone unmentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Shovon76 that he also thought that we could start splitting the article here. I fail to see how he can now turn around and accuse others of acting prematurely or even of gaming the system for doing what he too advised without becoming a hypocrite. Huon (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) While these diffs are correct and address Shovon's talk page behaviour (maybe he too should have been named by Zuggernaut as another of those accused of gaming the system?), the comment I was responding to wasn't actually by Shovon. My mistake, sorry. Huon (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Huon, please refer to the talk page of the concerned article. My opinion as well as talk page behaviour does not reveal double standards or hypocrisy. At one of time I had an opinion when a certain amount of information were presented before me. As newer data came to my attention, I am entitled to change my opinion. After all, that's how the decision making process generally takes place. It does not matter whether I have supported or opposed the move. The point is that even before there was any consensus on the page move, Huon created an article with South Asia in the title and started moving content from the List of Indian inventions and discoveries, which can be interpreted as presenting before other editors a fait accompli. Shovon (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting closure

• This was archived prematurely so I've restored it so it can be closed properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, can someone step in and close the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries#Requested move? No doubt it's no consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV has been backlogged for several hours now, could an admin take a look please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Promethean attacking science fiction conventions en masse

User:Promethean, who apparently knows nothing about science fiction conventions or science fiction fandom, has done a bulk set of AfD nominations for various conventions, including some of the oldest (Icon (Iowa science fiction convention), Marcon) and most distinctive (Readercon) on the planet; as well as an AfD nomination for List of science fiction conventions, one of the most carefully maintained lists I know of. It is increasingly hard to assume good faith here, as he seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT about these articles, some of which could certainly use improvement and more external sourcing. Each convention discussion has understandably started drawing input from people familiar with that convention, and the accusations of COI, sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are flying. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but sometimes our favorite things just aren't attention-worthy enough to the outside world. In those 3 articles linked above, I see coverage that is purely local. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the examples above, I see no need on the face of it for admin action. Some prompt article rescue would appear to be called for, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you need to get out more ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Those 3 conventions are all well known. I bet there is coverage in Locus (magazine) of all of them. The nominations sound pointy, sort of like that guy who was nominating articles about transistors recently (I'm not into the inclusionist/deletionist thing, but I generally believe uncontentious reference info about non-self-promoting topics is fine to leave alone). That said, if there are a lot of such convention articles it might be ok to merge some clusters of them. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointy or no, there's nothing here worth administrative attention. Let's close this. Editors need to work this one out; if there is insufficient referencing in these articles, well, the answer is left as an exercise for the student.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete it! Tarc (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one idea, Tarc. Does the rest of the class have any other ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt: We're doomed if people can't figure out that you're screaming at them to just add some sources. Sheesh. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the attacks on editors opposing him that Promethian is coming out with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just from a cursory search about these conventions, i'm finding it quite clear that the nominator, Promethean, is failing WP:BEFORE pretty badly and, thus, his actions could be seen as being pointy. The rapid nature at which he is AfDing these articles show that he isn't even following WP:BEFORE even in a cursory sense, since there isn't enough time between nominations for him to have made even a quick look for sources. Silverseren^C 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think Promethean is out of line, although I can certainly see where the "pointy" argument would come up. It appears to me — someone who casually likes science fiction, but not avidly — that we have a situation where some sci-fi related events, such as cons, may not meet general notability standards, but still exist because of a different, unwritten level of notability applied to the genre. This may be because of systemic bias, which is unavoidable to some extent. But it does beg the question: Do we need to establish specific notability policies for cons? Is a one-off event at the local Sheraton's meeting room, which draws 300 or 400 attendees, notable enough? And what of similar fan events in other genres? Something that needs to be addressed, IMHO. Cheers! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• My deep reserves of good faith are quite strained when Promethean argues "I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do" (here, for example) nearly a dozen times. - Dravecky (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalbot!

Resolved

 – Blocked by Timotheus Canens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Somebody block it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is the one to blame... T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Darwinek continues to move articles without discussion and in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:POINT

Previous AN/I discussion on this subject

User:Darwinek continues to move articles without discussion and in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:POINT, and without proving sources to justify the need move articles. His edit summery of “to correct name” [71][72][73][74] is subjective and violates WP:NPOV. This issue has previously been discussed here and he has been warned here. By continuing to make these unilateral moves Darwinek has demonstrated by his that he is unwilling to open discussions to seek consensus for moves on an article-by-article bases, and it is time to take admin action to stop his disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DIACRITICS. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"His edit summery of “to correct name” [82][83][84][85] is subjective and violates WP:NPOV." No it doesn't, edit summaries are not subject to NPOV. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See no issue here, user was WP:BOLD as he is allowed to be, its not up to him to start a discussion on every article, its up to you to start a discussion if you object to his move on each article. ie WP:BRD. Retain is about varieties of english which isn't applicable here. And I see no point violations as he isn't doing anything to purposefully disrupt the wiki. As for discussions on the matter, there have been some in the past. Although he wasn't part of them the ice hockey wikiproject (which I mention because those are the articles you used as examples) came to the conclusion that European ice hockey bio articles get them if the players name includes them. So he isn't editing against consensus, but rather with it. I also note that he did attempt to discuss with you on your talk page about the moves on March the 8th and you did not respond. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek posted his message on my talk page only after I posted on my talk page that I was taking a wikibreak.[75]. Dolovis (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It would make life easier if a discussion could be held on any necessary changes (or nor as the case may be) to WP:DIACRITICS. I'm surprised this wasn't opened up last time given the opposing views. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that one wasn't because its a perennial argument that never gets fully settled because it seems to be a roughly split 50/50 down the middle on if they should be used or not which is why WP:DIACRITICS says there is no preference. And I would bet another reason would be due to the warning in that page to "Beware of over-dramatising these issues". I think this is again a case of over dramatising it when it could have been discussed on their talk pages as was attempted by Darwinek on the 8th of March. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Until the issue is clearly settled to give consensus to mass moves, Darwinek should follow the policy of WP:RETAIN which states that the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Darwinek has supplied no sources to verify the common use of diacritics in the names of there people, and his edit comments that it is the “correct name” is clearly WP:POV. None of the sources included in these articles support the renaming of these articles. Djsasso's says that WP:BOLD applies, but that policy contemplates the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is something that Darwinek has neglected to follow. I am not able to revert these moves because I am not an admin, and (unlike Darwinek) I am not able to move these articles back over a redirect to continue the BRD cycle. Dolovis (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you see that he isn't following the BRD cycle. He was bold, its up to you to revert, then you discuss. Since you have not reverted then he is following the cycle. And as pointed out he tried to discuss with you and you did not reply which indicates he is able to continue doing the moves since you did not discuss. As you were told in the last discussion, any editor can move an article over a redirect (unless its been edited by another user which is rarely the case). It does not take an admin to do so. It is in fact what you should be doing if you object. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would revert if I could, but I do not have the needed admin powers to revert the move of an article over the redirect. Would an admin please move the above linked articles back to their originals names so that I may pursue this matter on an article-by-article bases through WP:BRD as instructed by DJSasso. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, you don't need admin powers to move an article over a redirect, or even to revert these moves. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move explains how. Ravendrop 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but it does not seem possible for me to revert Darwinek edits without admin help. Even the informational link provide by Ravendrop states "If page A has subsequently been edited, or the move software is behaving weirdly, only an admin can sort things out", please I am requesting admin help. Dolovis (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What that means is that if I moved location A to location B. And then a 2nd editor came and edited the redirect that was left at location A, for example change the page that it was redirecting too. Then it takes an admin to fix it. But if all that happened was page A moved to page B then you just have to pick move and type in the old name and hit submit and it will move over top of the redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked with the first move you cited, and you should be able to revert it without any problem as the original name (what is no the redirect) has not been edited. To do this go to Special:Log/move and search either by the user name or the name that the article was originally at, and then hit the revert button at the end of the line. Enter your reasoning for reverting and confirm. I'd do it for you, but since I'm neutral about the issue at the moment, and you're the main opponent of it, I feel its better for you to revert it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs)

That would also work. Either way is good. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now figured out how to revert the moves, and have invoked WP:BRD on some of the moved articles. Pursuant to BRD, I will now wait to see if Darwinek wishes to open discussions on the affected articles talk pages to determine if renaming is appropriate on an article-by-article basis. Thank you for your assistance. Dolovis (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly would you want to do that? As explained above, diacritics are commonly used throughout the Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that you did do it in fact, looking at your mass reverts [76], this kind of action just looks like looking for trouble. Especially since most people above, and most people at thew previous AN/I discussion have pointed out to you that the moves were correct, according to WP guidelines and that you should probably leave it well enough alone, and FIRST start a discussion rather than engaging in mass reverts of another user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the mass changes are a problem, but not the mass reverts of Dolovis. The mass moves made by Darwinek without discussion or consensus, that is where the problem lies. Dolovis is merely restoring the status quo ante so that discussion can take place, per the BRD cycle. As an admin, Darwinek should know better, especially since this exactl same issue was brought to AN/I within the last few months. Deliberately doing the same thing that was objected to previously, again without a consensus to do so, is disruptive, and absolutely terrible behavior for an admin, whose job is to reduce disruption, not create it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, he wasn't really doing something against consensus, as consensus at the hockey project (and he was moving hockey articles at least thats what I see from the examples) is that bios of hockey players whose name contains diacritics have them added. So he was moving them to be inline with the hockey projects standard. Personally I don't think they should have been reverted but its Dolovis's right to do the reverts. I like most others in both discussions think he should have left it well enough alone. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:RETAIN, these sorts of moves should not be undertaken without some sort of prior discussion. Even if it is in line with the hockey Wikiproject, they are only a Wikiproject and not in charge of articles about hockey players. If Darwinek or the hockey wikiproject wished to undertake these changes, then he or they should have opened a centralized discussion on the matter in one of the main Wikipedia discussion boards and obtained consensus for such a change. Thus, Dolovis is perfectly correct in reverting them and invoking both WP:RETAIN and the necessity of WP:BRD. Silverseren^C 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So as part of the BRD cycle I undo Dolovis mass reverts (because I think they are wrong headed) that should be within purview of the BRD cycle as well, right?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:RETAIN explicitly states: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs" - this isn't the case for the vast majority of the articles here, at least I haven't found one yet where it would be applicable. For Monkey Sake! Most of these articles are barely a month old or so and nothing more than one sentence stubs. Clearly they have not "evolved sufficiently". They're still in the primodial Wiki ooze more or less. Hence WP:RETAIN just doesn't apply here, and I would really really appreciate it if people actually bothered to read policy/guideline pages rather than just quoting them like some fighters in an old kung fu movie ("WP:Drunken fists!" "WP:RETAIN!" "WP:Flying mongoose!" "WP:DIACRITICS!" "WP:Shadowless Fist of Death!").Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding overtly racist editor and recidivist sockpuppeteer

User:Giornorosso was blocked on 13 March 2011 following this discussion on ANI. After that block, the user went on to create sockpuppets Beholdernig (talk · contribs), Killtheniggur (talk · contribs), Lootsucker (talk · contribs), and Howardnug (talk · contribs), all of which were blocked on 27 March. Although I pointed out the likely connection of 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a follow-up discussion on ANI, it remained unblocked. When I asked User:Tiptoety, the checkuser who had handled the sockpuppetry case, why it was not blocked, they blocked it for a week. Tiptoety left on a wikibreak when I asked them to explain why it wasn't indef blocked.

The week-long block on the IP has now expired. New user Holy0cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared right on schedule to continue editing the same articles and with the same agenda as Giornorosso. I cannot understand why the IP was not indef blocked in the first place, or why Tiptoety would feel that a week-long block was appropriate, but I am not privy to the checkuser information. As far as I can tell, this is a racist POV-pusher and persistent sockpuppeteer using a static DSL IP - why is it not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't assume an IP is static, end-of, especially since in many cases a router reset will change an IP. Thus, IPs are rarely, if ever, indef'd. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't happen all that often, but IPs are sometimes indef blocked, or blocked for very long periods. Year-long blocks are not uncommon for school IPs, for example. Looking over the contributions from the IP shows that the same user has had it since March 2010. How much collateral damage is likely from blocking this single IP from the Czech Republic, even if it turns out to be dynamic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Many users change IP when they get blocked so the fact they've had it for a while may not say much... Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that it appears that this user had had the same IP for over a year now and did not appear to change it when their main account was blocked. None of this answers the question why was the IP not blocked at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the IP was being used by a registered user, then I presume it would have been caught in an autoblock when the user was blocked, wouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it for others with access to the checkuser data to comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All above-reported accounts are  Confirmed as Giornorosso (talk · contribs), and they have already been blocked. –MuZemike 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominic, a checkuser, has blocked the IP for 3 months. NW (Talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Leakingisgood

Leakingisgood (talk · contribs) whose first edit was December 30th just copied someone's userpage to his [77]. I can't recall what we do when this happens, although I'll revert him and notify him of this discussion. There have been other problems with this editor, see their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the second time he has copied Favonian's user page. Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Third time, actually. GiantSnowman 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:MaxIsScared

User:MaxIsScared is likely a troll. His bizarre edits includes randomly undoing legitimate edits [78], adding unsourced info [79], removing sourced info [80]. I believe he is a sock of indef blocked User:DiehardNFFLbarnone since he makes the same exact edits on Terrence Williams.—Chris!_c/t 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He now become User:IHateGlennBeck, User:TerrenceWilliamsforPrez.—Chris!_c/t 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All three blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars

• Fjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.8.218.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.216.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.217.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just came across this editor, apparently in an edit war on Bee Movie with an apparently dynamic IP. I gave him a warning but he blanked it and said "I know", then started dicking around when I asked what he was doing and offered to help. Checking his contributions, it looks like he's been in edit wars all over the place - his history seems to be almost entirely reverting stuff.

The latest wars have been with the above IP addresses, which are presumably the same person. I've no idea who's right here, but as Fjp1995 flipped me off when I asked him to explain (and carried on warring), I've indef blocked him, and I've blocked the latest IP for 24 hours - both for edit-warring. I really don't know what's been happening here other than edit-warring, or who's right - it's late here and I need some sleep. I'll notify Fjp1995 and the newest IP.

Can anyone work out what this is about and whether anything needs to be done? (Feel free to change my blocks without needing to check with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• AntiFjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just been created and commented on Fjp1995's Talk page - presumably a sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I first noticed this guy on March 20 when I followed up on one of his early AIV reports and mistakenly blocked an IP who was making good edits. Discussion between me and seaphoto is at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 8#65.8.221.157. Since then, Fjp1995 has been filing many AIV reports on what appear to be content disputes. I have not been investigating them as my pop-cutlure knowledge is insufficient to know which edits are any good. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Timfitzpatrick and DFCU Financial

There is a long history of inappropriate additions of non-notable living persons to the DFCU Financial article, usually by IP editors [81], [82], [83], [84]. The most recent of these [85] was done by User:Timfitzpatrick - a probable impersonator and the name of one of the real life employees of the company who is continually added into the article, and one of the subjects of this ongoing harassment campaign. I have notified the user. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, user had been previously warned about the addition of defamatory material in June 2010. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)