Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive700

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Redirection problem

Resolved: redirect created - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds like it needs to be a dab page --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's resolved. That exact phrase is used for nothing but Discworld. If you must you could add a "x redirects here, for blah see y" to the target page. Fences&Windows 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to create a redirect page for "Glorious Twenty-fifth of May" (to go to in honour of tomorrow and Terry Pratchett, and got an automated message that said "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." and directed me to request help from an Admin.


(I already added a bit to the calendar page)

Thank you!

--Boomonsa (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That generally means you're running up against the title blacklist, though I don't know why. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect created, though I am not sure what filter the title was running up against. In return, you must tell me which book(s) it comes up in. I know I recognize the Reasonably Priced Love line, but all Discworld books merge into one memory file about five minutes after I finish reading one. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
See Legacy of the May Revolution for some details of the importance of 25th May to millions of people in non-fictional universes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, that sounds like it needs to be a dab page, not a redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
So make it a dab page, or redirect to a section of May 25? The part that needed an admin has been taken care of, and I am not sure we need to discuss the particulars of the content for the page at this venue instead of at the talkpage. Searching for that exact phrase turns up a bunch of Pratchett pages, but fantasy literature geeks are probably overrepresented on the web. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for intervention in the Nair article

A discussion has been going on for many days in the Nair article about the varna status, triggered by a caste fanatic called CarTick. But one of the users, MatthewVanitas has been indulging in one sided and completely biased edits even as the discussion was going on, ignoring other editors like this and this. Even after evidence was presented to show the non-reliability of his changes here, rather than acknowledging it, he resorted to attack the editor based on his surname. On top of this edit history of MatthewVanitas shows that he is incapable of being neutral in such situations, as he is constantly adding the offensive term Sudra (peasant varna) to non-peasant castes like Nairs and Kayasths, while protecting a particular well known peasant community (Maratha) from that term. I request some one more neutral to oversee the article and take in to account the views of all the users. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Neutral changes were made to the first paragraph. But MV and Cartick continuously changed it to steer the language to their point of view. Opinion of the majority of the people in the talk page are ignored (then what is the need for a Talk page?). Some one please stop these caste fanatics from insulting the communities they are less tolerant with. Robbie.Smit (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
These allegations are unfounded. I'm a member of WP:WikiProject India and have been clearly outlining there my activities regarding caste articles, and the consensus there has been supportive of these long overdue fixes. A request was made at WPINDIA for help on a thorny caste issue in Nair, I arrived and updated the article with well-chosen citations, which have been reverted by the above complainants. To give context to readers not tracking India issues, a large number of Indian castes have "legendary" claims to be of the Kshatriya (warrior) mega-caste (varna). However, in the vast majority of cases a quick perusal of RSs on GoogleBooks makes clear that most of these castes are historically of the Shudra (farmer) varna, and the main people who believe their "warrior" status are the caste members themselves. Unfortunately, this is politically unpalatable, and since many caste articles are haunted by strong pro-caste POV, such mentions of the very term Shudra provoke massive retaliation, regardless of how many PhDs have written so and reputable universities have published their findings.
Referring to their specific claims, I did not attack a user based on name; his name is certainly not "Nair", so my general statement that "we have to watch out for POV from people who have are in a given family and want to self promote" has no way of applying to him directly. Second, the first complainant, CM, tampered with my RS references, changing the links from a 2003 University of California publication to some Victorian penny-rag, with no edit summary provided. I didn't catch the change until I converted the gBooks links to full cites: dif. In short, the article has several editors hell-bent on keeping any whisper of the term "Shudra" out of the article no matter what the refs say. My only goal is to balance out caste articles by insuring that "awkward truths" like a working-class history are not obscured by historical whitewashing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing to say except that i am pretty confident nobody is going to care about this thread except may be give a shallow opinion and treat single purpose accounts that have no edits outside nair and nair related articles with others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history. --CarTick (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the term "Sudra" is not used in normal occasions in independent India. Rather than as a varna, it is used more as a derogatory ethnic slang, like "Nigger" and "Kike". If a person calls someone "Sudra", he will face the same result when someone calls an African American "Nigger" in the US. MV argues that Nair was originally a farmer caste which falsely claim the Kshatriya status. But the sources other users given (More than 100 of them here) proves otherwise. At the most we can argue that Nair is both Sudra and Kshatriya. But in that case, the edits by MV and Cartick has been completely one-sided by ignoring the Kshatriya factor. As seen from here, Nair is even given as an example or mentioned as one of the only two Kshatriya castes in many of the well reliable sources. What MV and Cartick want is to completely whitewash this and bombard the article with the offensive term "Sudra" wherever possible. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history" - This is Cartick's main tool for sometime now. He makes thousands of rubbish edits in articles which he has no interest to camouflage his disruptive edits in caste related articles. Treat everyone equally. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nairs were always regarded as Kshatriya in Kerala. But varna is not important in Kerala caste system. So it will be better not to mention it. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This "Shudra is a slur" canard is overplayed; if you dislike it take it up with the academic community who continue to note this historic designation. So far as agreeing "both", that is exactly what CarTrick and I have been advocating; we are the ones pushing to say "the issue is contested, and A Group says X and B groups claims Y." It is your side which insists on making the whole page "totally warriors, always." If our edits are "one sided", it's only because we're adding Shudra cites to the existing Kshatriya cites, not removing the Kshatriya in favour of Shudra. The other popular canard is "oh well, varna doesn't matter so let's leave out the Shudra"; it's all well and peachy when one can use highly-contested Kshatriya claims (with the contestation ignored) to peacock a caste article, but once the messy realities of caste politics arise, then suddenly "varna isn't important"? Again, the clearly cited facts demonstrate that the Nair/Nayar have been considered Kshatriya by some (and in some cases), and or filled a "Kshatriya-like" social role, where in others they are strictly Brahminically categoried as Shudra due to lacking verifiable descent from the (generally believed extinct) ancient Kshatriya classes. The entire argument against this has yet to have any real basis than "Shudra isn't a pretty word, and we can't say anything that might hurt someone's feelings."
To those folks unfamiliar with India issues, again this is as though the Scottish clan "MacGregor" article went on about how the whole clan was noble Scottish lords and warriors, but then when confronted with PhD/university citations showing they'd been a class of turf-cutters and shepherds, with several kings arising from them and several periods of war where they did indeed provide soldiers, the clan-advocates would cry "you can't call them turf-cutters, that's calling them 'hicks' and inappropriate! And besides, their occupational history isn't important at all, let's compromise and just go back to calling them kings and warriors." I am still failing to see any reasonable NPOV argument for leaving out the well-document Shudra affiliation of the Nair. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please close this complaint, as I have withdrawn it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be closed after you've called another editor a "caste fanatic." WP:NPA certainly applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree! Calling Cartick a "caste fanatic" is a blatant personal attack.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
he also wished three of us death. apparently, he later apologised to user Sitush. --CarTick (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a death threat, per se. He stated he won't come back until you've all died, more of a "I'll wait you out" statement. Regardless, it's not civil at all. For now, let's see if he sticks with his retirement. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise that my name had appeared here, albeit rather tangentially. The issue will never go away either on this article or pretty much any other dealing with subcontinental castes. However, it is true that the original complainant ([[User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar)sent me an email around the time of his "retirement" and it was a contrite one. I accepted it with good grace on his talk page, although I did not respond by email. I need to set up a separate email account for that sort of stuff otherwise I'm likely to be inundated with caste warrior attacks orchestrated off-wiki. I am not suggesting that the original complainant would do such, though.
Regardless, if any admin wants to see the email then just let me know where to forward it. In my opinion this is just another typhoon in a teacup, which is typical for these articles. It had its origins in frustration/lack of understanding of WP policies and guidelines + an apparent caste COI more than anything else. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

2011-2012 NBA season: possible vandalism?


Someone put a section in all caps on the article 2011-2012 NBA season. I believe that could potentially constitute vandalism, though I'm not sure about it. I am requesting that an adminstrator take a look at it. I couldn't find out who put it there so I can't provide any links or diffs or notify anyone.

--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in all-caps currently in the article. Section headers in all-caps isn't necessarily vandalism; it could be a simple mistake. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The edit in question was removed by Ohnoitsjamie and it was not vandalism, just an anonymous editor not familiar with Wikipedia's editing styles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the information inserted was correct, though it wouldn't really go there. Kansan (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Accuses me of hounding his edits, yet I explained him that in 2 of the 3 articles in question other editors have made the same edits like me shortly before or after me. In one case he was asked by another editor to wait a discussion and a consensus before reverting again. I had overriding reason for the edits and I've justified them. The user attacked me personally, [1] and admitted also that he was hounding my edits, something he accused me to do with his. --Severino (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment That is not a personal attack. If it is, you'll have to explain to me what it is that is either "personal" or "attacking" about it, because I'm not seeing it. The Hounding accusation was made in good faith, as far as I can tell (and I'm not at all confident that either of you understand what constitutes "wikihounding" -- I see no evidence that either of you are trying to be "intentionally disruptive"). There seems to be developing consensus in favor of at least one of the edits at issue and, either way, this is a content issue and not at all an ANI issue. I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish with this ANI -- I highly doubt anybody will review JPTINS3000's contributions and find any serious problems. The "banging head against a brick wall" line might be a bit much but, really, this is not a big deal as far as I can tell. Work it out on the article talk pages. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur with Ginsengbomb. Not seeing the attack here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • you haven't rearranged his words completely. but ok, if this and the accusation of "silly edit" constitutes no attack or another offence, i know that i'm entitled to post things like that as well.--Severino (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Severino, that re-arranging of words is of a common English idiom, referring to a pointless and unnecessarily onerous activity, as in "I am banging my head against a brick wall here". Hence my persistent inquiry as regards to your native language (which you still haven't been kind enough to relinquish!). JPTINS3000 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

again, i will watch the outcome and find out which tone is accepted on wikipedia.--Severino (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, "silly edit" is not a nice thing to say, I agree. If there were some vast pattern of similar comments coming from JPTINS3000's corner then there might be an issue here, but it's a one-off comment. Neither my comment nor OhNo's constitutes a full endorsement of calling other editors' edits "silly". Use some common sense, please. I don't recommend you run around making pointy "silly edit" comments in response, lest this ANI post begin to resemble a boomerang. I also don't think "silly edit" is a particularly nasty "personal attack," if it even constitutes a personal attack at all, but that's somewhat beside the point.

If it helps: JPTINS3000! Never call anyone's edits "silly" again, you vicious, sociopathic guttersnipe! Now run along you two, get back to improving this encyclopedia like you were doing before this silliness. I was kidding about the guttersnipe bit; that was totally not a personal attack. Really, I have great affection for you. *hug* ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jayen466 wikihounding User:Cirt

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.
What on Earth made anyone think that an issue so intricate, on a topic so controversial, could be satisfactorily resolved at ANI? Well, the resulting unfocussed free-form extended mess should by now disabuse anyone who had that idea to begin with. This is clearly a matter for RFC/U and/or Arbitration Enforcement, and if further action is needed, that's the direction to go in. At the same time, it's stating the obvious that bringing Scientology-related disputes into other topics is unhelpful, and all should strive to avoid it. It would be helpful for these editors to stay out of each others' way as much as possible, and try to see if issues they may come across with the other's editing can be resolved without their input. Rd232 talk 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time in about 3-4 months that Cirt has asked my advice on handling the intervention of User:Jayen466 in discussion related to topics he is working on. Consistently, Jayen466 stalks the edits of Cirt and regularly makes accusation of bias in his work when both community processes and conversations. Another user raised concerns on Jayen's talk page and he refuses to concede that his interactions with Cirt are overly aggressive. The most recent accusations can be found at Cirt's talk page and at various points in conversations on the WikiEn-l: [2], [3], [4]. Also, he has been very active recently in positions directly opposed to Cirt in the conversations on wiki, such as the ungrounded comments made at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Google_rating_of_this_article. The consensus on Cirt's talk page of users who have watched this happen off and on for a while is that this is in fact Wikihounding, this opinion can be found here.

I suggest that we place a topic ban on topics and talk pages directly related to Cirt's editing practices on User:Jayen466, with a work around of him being able to contact a designated admin, like myself, if he feels the need to point out verifiable issues with content that Cirt creates. Cirt regularly writes well founded articles, and though they are of a controversial nature sometimes, the continual aggression on the part of Jayen is causing Cirt a lot of behind the scenes anxiety where in many of the cases, Jayen's position is not based on solid evidence. I am concerned that their interaction, which Cirt is not deliberately seeking in any way as far as I can tell, is not placing either editor in a healthy situation with their relationships with other members of the community. Thank you for considering my request, Sadads (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Just going to state an observation here. All of Cirt's friend are going to show up here and say Jayen466 is hounding Cirt. All of Jayen466 freind's are going to show saying that it is shooting the messenger and that Jayen466's concerns are well founded. Lets try and avoid that. Also I just notified Cirt The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that anyone without a preconceived judgement on the matter first read Jayen's summary of evidence and the resulting discussion. Then, if you have any futher questions, I would suggest asking them of either Jayen or Cirt, and then forming your conclusion. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing that "summary of evidence" is "evidence" for is Jayen466's creepily following Cirt's edits for years, drawing nefarious political conclusions, and then publishing them off-wiki to nurture a grudge, without addressing Cirt or any community process or scrutiny. That link you posted was already included in Sadads's original post, but within the larger and more serious context of Jayen466's hounding behavior. No editor without a preconceived judgment should miss the other half of the links: on Jayen466's own talk page about their mutual history, the WikiEn-l mailing list ([5][6][7]; where Jayen466 reveals certain prejudices), and the santorum page, where Jayen466 blatantly indulges in what he has most recently accused Cirt of: political activism, to be (time and time again) on the opposing side of Cirt in his content disputes. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You neglected to mention that Cirt was recently asked to stop editing Scientology articles because of community concerns about Cirt's treatement of associated BLPs. Jayen was one of the ones, if I remember right, who helped get that issue resolved. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection with any of the editors involved with this and haven't looked at the allegations of wikistalking enough to comment on them, but I do feel that the mailing list thread is inappropriate. I have only been on the list for a few weeks so I'm not sure of the generally accepted scope of topics on it, but it really has seemed to me like it would have been better off as an on-wiki discussion. I also feel that some on list comments about cirt have been uncalled for and the thread in general has been the biggest stream of unjustifiable bad-faith assumptions I've seen. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt
  1. I agree with the proposal by Sadads, it is the best way to resolve this issue.
  2. Jayen has been following me for over three years now, and it is quite disturbing and disconcerting. I agree with this admonition that Jayen's behavior is disruptive and that he attempts to forum shop and foment opposition to me, in multiple different offsite methods.
  3. The following of me goes back to at least November 2007, and is most obvious when Jayen shows up disturbingly soon after I create a new article where naturally Jayen would not have previously known about its existence or ever edited it.
  4. Jayen often shows up to disputes that he was not previously involved in, where I am a party, and takes the opposing position.
  5. However the issue is not simply antagonistic behavior, but simply the disturbing pattern of following me, literally for years, and showing up shortly after me on obscure pages he is aware of because of said behavior — regardless of the position he takes on those pages upon showing up after me.
  6. In fact, I would even agree to a mutual restriction upon both of us not to show up after the other user — if that is what it would take to stop Jayen from following me for years on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous and has gone on for long enough. Jayen should just leave Cirt alone. He shouldn't comment on Cirt's talk page and shouldn't edit articles created by Cirt. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats easier now than in the past since Cirt is not editing as many New Religious movement articles as often. I do feel that Jayen is doing this with legitimate concern for the project policies. I feel the issues Jayen466 raised should be examined.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I would better believe that Jayen466 did this "with legitimate concern for the project policies" if he raised each grievance he had with Cirt on the respective talk pages when the issue was current. But he did not, instead dropping them into his little box of anti-Cirt material to share and campaign among disgruntled editors. As a result, many of the articles in which Jayen466 makes complaints about Cirt's behavior, such as Kenneth Dickson and Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, are long deleted; we would have to take Jayen466's word for a lot of his accusations, which obviously cannot be done. Whenever one of Jayen466's complaints is disaggregated and analyzed, such as most recently done on santorum's talk page, it is Jayen466 that is found to be acting against community norms and consensus, not Cirt. Jayen466 has "issues" alright, but they're dark and personal issues with another editor, rather than any transparent concern about policy or content that we can seriously discuss. Quigley (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying Jayen has handled the situation perfectly. Cirt and Jayen, have a long history on here which has been tit-for-tat on both ends for a long time. I think its dishonest for Cirt to play helpless victim here as its a manipulative tactic that shifts focus away Cirt own actions. I have defended Cirt when I think unfair attacks are launched but I also note Cirt is not always an innocent party. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
ResidentAnthropologist, please note that I have offered to agree to a mutual editing restriction from following each other from new article creation and pages where the other has not previously edited - even though that was not the original proposal by Sadads. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I think thats something Jayen should consider. I do think that Jayen intent has been and has always been to uphold the letter and spirit of policies particularly that of BLP. Your own choice to edit controversial areas means that people will raise concerns when they feel policy is being violated. I consider both of you good Editors and valuable ones at that who I have spent alot of time on Wikipedia with. So forgive me if you feel like I am straddling the fence here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Jayen should really stop with any off-wiki commenting or discussions on WikiEn. However, I do feel that some of his concerns about Cirt are valid and shouldn't just be ignored under the pretext of "hounding". One area of concern that Jayen raised was the Corbin Fisher article that Cirt created in December of 2009. In this edit he made earlier this month, his summary stated that he was putting things in chronological order when he was actually also removing a section of the history that was critical of the company and had very valid references to substantiate it. I have since re-added the section in a slightly edited form, but I think Cirt's removal of it with a misleading edit summary does show a sense of partisanship on Cirt's part and is an understandable cause of concern by Jayen. SilverserenC 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Silver seren, I have since removed that article from my watchlist and your edit makes sense. However, I agree with Sadads that these "issues" do not have to be raised by Jayen through direct interjection, and if he truly feels the compulsion to follow my edits constantly for years it is best for him to do so by approaching third party editors such as Sadads, who are less involved. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that Jayen is not going about this the right way, but I also agree with ResidentAnthropologist that Jayen is probably doing this with the best intentions and is concerned with your style of editing. SilverserenC 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Partisanship" in what way? That did not seem to be an ideological edit at all (contrast Jayen466's at santorum). If you are suggesting that Cirt has a conflict of interest with the company, then you should provide comprehensive evidence at the appropriate noticeboard for that insinuation, or not keep repeating it until it becomes harassment. Anyway, that edit seems justified because near to none of the sources in the material removed were reliable, most of them being blogs; and that section of speculation was arguably a fringe issue. Not that Cirt couldn't have been a little more clear in his edit summary, but he apparently made a talk page section a few days before warning against the insertion of shoddily-sourced material. The way Jayen466 presented the Corbin Fisher issue, especially juxtaposed against santorum, it had a subtone of "Cirt is expanding articles about gay topics; isn't that gross? Shouldn't we punish him?" And that is completely unacceptable. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you need to calm down. Your comments here are showing that you are either really defensive with Cirt or you really dislike Jayen, either way, I think you should take a step back from this. I'm friends with both of them and am trying to find a proper way to mediate this. I don't think anyone should be "punished" for any of this, that's not how we do things. I believe an interaction ban is probably the best way to do things and, if either of them feel that it is very necessary to bring up something about the other, then they should go through a third-party administrator to do so. SilverserenC 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree with this suggestion by Silver seren. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I will recuse myself, then. However, I should note that I have not interacted with Cirt or Jayen466 prior to Jayen466's crusade to delete the santorum article, the excesses of which have driven more editors than me to exasperation. Quigley (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Then let me note that there are a number of users, myself included, who have exhibited concern on the Santorum talk page about the article. It's not like Jayen is the only one. SilverserenC 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If Jayen could stop trying their attempts to redo or rename or vanish Santorum (neologism), that would be a nice start already. It's pretty clear from the talk page and the various AfDs that there is no consensus for what they want, and repeated requests easily suggest an all-too personal interest--not in santorum, of course, but in one of its writers. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think discussion on the Santorum page is so messed up as it is that there's no way to get any proper consensus on anything and there are numerous people who feel that the page is just an attack page against Santorum. Such a belief has nothing to do with having a personal interest with it, though it is possible. SilverserenC 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The page is not "messed up"; it is thoroughly referenced, has withstood three AfDs with a strong mandate to keep, and endures through overwhelming consensus Jayen466 and friends' multiple disruptive attempts to stub, split, and otherwise disfigure it. Jayen466's behavior on that article's talk page should be more closely examined. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no love for Rick Santorum's politics at all, but that page is horrid. The "neologism" was purposefully created with the intent to sully Santorum's name via web searches, and those in favor of retaining that page are aiding and abetting that artificially-constructed and very nasty slander, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that an interaction ban is called for. Jayen's been asked to step back from his pursuit of Cirt before, but he keeps following Cirt around. The personal innuendos against Cirt show that Jayen is not approaching their differences with a dispassionate interest. Almost every time Cirt creates an article appears to work on it, and often to criticize Cirt. That's disruptive harassment.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Will, please provide diffed evidence of this assertion, preferably from the last half year, since my last run-in with Cirt on this board, or retract it. --JN466 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pardon me if I note that your opinion of Jayen should be taken with a grain of salt considering your past interaction with him and myself in the Larouche subject area. SilverserenC 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • By that logic, the comments from you and Jayen46 at WP:AE should also be "taken with a grain of salt". As it happens, I've also been followed by Jayen to a number of topics which is why there's been conflict between us in the past, but the situation with Cirt is far worse.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Talk of interaction bans sidesteps the real issue here, and that is if Jayen's concerns about Cirt's editing related to certain articles holds water or not. We probably should open a separate thread to give the community a forum to discuss Jayen's evidence on Cirt's editing and decide if it is actionable or not. If the community decides there isn't anything to his evidence, then interaction bans might should be on the table. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
They are separate issues. But if you think that Cirt is genuinely acting as an advocate for a gay porn company, some assorted politicians, and a neologism then that should be considered separately. Bringing even valid complaints doesn't justify invalid behavior.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

My last run-in with Cirt on this board is here, for reference: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt. This present discussion is much like the last one, which arose in the context of an AE thread where Cirt wanted to bar another editor, User:Delicious carbuncle, from ever commenting on his editing again, claiming to be "Wikihounded". It succeeded, until I pointed out that Cirt had blatantly canvassed. The closure was appealed, overturned by an arbitrator, and Cirt was asked to step back from editing Scientology, based on a long history of wilful NPOV and BLP violations, involving both egregious puffery for those favoured, and poorly sourced derogatory material for those disfavoured. This is exactly what Delicious Carbuncle had said, and was the whole reason for Cirt’s attack on him.

It became apparent that Cirt has a long history of using AE and ANI to get anyone messing with their articles, which are invariably promoting one side or another, blocked or banned from commenting. I had expected no different this time. (And of course, Will Beback is here again, as always. He himself uses much the same tactics, as in his current attempt to get Cla68 banned from an article he wishes to own. Not one editor there has backed him up.)

The reason Cirt keeps getting into trouble with a whole host of editors, all of whom are said to be "WP:WIKIHOUNDING" them, is because of the blatantly promotional nature of much of their work.

"Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of."

 —U.S. Congressman Joseph Crowley[1]

And then cry "Wikihounding" in defence? Since when is this project in the business of promoting political candidates at elections?

As for Kenneth Dickson, another puff piece for a political candidate Cirt favoured on ideological grounds, no one has to take my word for it. Here are the comments from the AfD:

AfD comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete As noted above, the article is highly promotional. Example: the twice-repeated assertion that "Dickson beat Joel Anderson in votes cast in the Republican primary in Riverside County, California, but Anderson won the election itself; with Dickson receiving 20 percent of total votes." Sorry, he didn't "beat" the other candidate by doing better in one area of the district; he LOST the primary election, rather badly. Like others here, I am annoyed that my previous comments disappeared into the void when the page was blanked. I am curious whether Cirt was the administrator who did that; if so I feel it was inappropriate, since Cirt is the author and primary editor of this article and thus is not neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete - my !vote was removed when the first version of this nom was deleted, so I'll re-register it. For those claiming that the number of sources verify the notability of the subject, let me remind you that the sources used to justify his notability need to be about the subject himself, not the school board/election/whatever else he's been a part of. I don't want to minimize Cirt's work, but I just don't think Kenneth Dickson's accomplishments warrant an article. If he wins a major election at some point, all well and good, the article can be recreated. But he hasn't yet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete This reads like an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Nominating this article for deletion the first time around was one of the first times I got involved in an XfD, because the article is so outrageously overblown and pufftastic that it's almost a self-parody. His kids' high school grades? His former boss said that he "did a 'great job'"? "He was very much a team player, always asking, 'What else can I do to help?'"? The guy is a local school board member, fairly average attorney, and political primary also-ran. Like anyone who is on a school board and runs for a local political job, his local papers have occasionally mentioned him. I give Cirt credit for writing the best-formatted, most thorough, best-MASKed article imaginable on this generally unknown local personage. Still, just as we do our best not to let a crappily-formatted article from a poor English speaker sway us toward deletion, the underlying (non-)notability of Kenneth Dickson cannot be affected by purple prose or by fifty footnotes to minor local press clippings marshaled in two columns. Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president." I.e., not particularly notable within the context of an encyclopedia of global scope. I'm sorry so much work went into the article, but that's just the cost of doing business. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS, and, with all due respect to Cirt, the article is a classic example of WP:MASK. Location (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete—he doesn't seem to have done anything which qualifies him as notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The person fails the WP:GNG notable criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. There is no apparent coverage outside of the single source -- a local community newspaper. The majority of the article attempts to establish WP:POLITICIAN, but a careful reading shows it is a WP:MASK for non-notable community service.— Cactus Writer (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what's alleged above, I have neither edited Santorum (neologism), nor proposed it for deletion. I joined a mailing list discussion that was ongoing for some time before I joined it. I have pointed out what I think are Cirt's googlebombing attempts in the article, specially creating three templates that add 250 inbound links to the article, and pointed out the coincidence in timing of Cirt's interest in the article: just after Santorum announced he might be running for president. I loathe Rick Santorum and everything he stands for, but I think the article is partisan and immature, and not a credit to this project. I'll take no further part in that discussion, here or elsewhere. --JN466 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Jayen keeps making this bad faith comment about "Cirt's googlebombing attempts". Please see this comment by SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) about Google page ranks: "Internal links are not used to calculate PageRank. Please don't propose that as some reason to undo another users work.". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: Then read the very next comment on that page: :Oh, you are so, so wrong. If internal links weren't used by google, half the of the wikipedia would have no google rank at all, they're quite often only linked internally, and further I've seen ranking change as I modify the internal links (over some weeks.)Rememberway (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Were you unaware of it? --JN466 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was. If that is the case, my apologies about that. I am sorry. It was not my intention. And it was not my reason for creating the templates. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Mmph. Admittedly, I had never read the [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt prior ANI discussion] before and Cirt's responses there (and the lack of understanding of his own mistakes) are greatly concerning. I'm afraid I will have to pull back my support for the interaction ban. I won't be opposing it, but I can't seem to bring myself to support it at this point.
On a separate note, what is the best community forum to go about discussing the points that Jayen raised on Cirt's talk page to see whether they are valid or not? SilverserenC 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Silver seren, I responded, on my user talk page. If you have additional questions, you can ask me, there. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you did, but I feel that some of the points Jayen made are things that should be discussed in a wider community forum (of which your talk page is not) in order to determine their validity. That is why I am asking which forum would be proper for such a discussion. SilverserenC 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: mutual interaction ban

To avoid getting into a dispute over who's to blame, it may be desirable simply use a mutual interaction ban. They should just stay out of each other's way.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I will agree to this mutual interaction ban. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Jayen has followed the dispute resolution process to the letter. I don't see a good reason to propose a "mutual interaction ban" before addressing the substance of his complaint. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What's the right dispute resolution to deal with en editor who harasses another editor by following them around and sniping at all of the contributions? He's been asked repeatedly to stop, Cirt has tried to avoid him, etc. This appears to be the next step in dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Diffs please. Recent ones. --JN466 05:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Cirt is just back from a two-month Wikibreak, and has edited only sporadically since January. One of the effects of harassing someone is to make them go away. This isn't a recent problem - it goes back years, apparently to when you both were editing the articles about Rajneesh and his new religious movement. I see for example, that when he created Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System in November you quickly followed him and apparently engaged in unhelpful editing.[8] Also in November you followed him to another article he'd written, Scientology (James R. Lewis book).[9]   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a book I have on my bookshelf. The article had major NPOV problems, as pointed out by User:DGG here, and those discussions were in February 2010. The Erhard article came to my attention through an AfD. I voted Keep on the article Cirt had written, but found some omissions that I rectified. That's normal editing, Will. --JN466 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Deal with the issues, don't restrict an editor who is following procedure. Would you have preferred him to open an RfC as a first step? StaniStani  05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I responded to the points raised at my user talk page. My response was "good enough" for the user that initiated the issue. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If you agree that we had a satisfactory discussion in line with dispute resolution policy, why do you seek an interaction ban? And there is one point which I would have liked you to clarify, though you did not. I thought I wouldn't press the point, but since we are here: This post about how Kenneth Dickson would be the best candidate is by a contributor named Xenubarb. She also wrote about it here. Here the same contributor, Xenubarb, says, "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles." Do you deny having started the Dickson article here in Wikipedia specifically to support the campaign she launched at that forum? And do you deny having made the edits to Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, and Hiram Monserrate for the same reasons? --JN466 06:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I seek an interaction ban because you have been following me now for over three years, and it is quite disturbing — regardless of the outcome or position you take in disputes you mysteriously show up at. As for the Dickson article - it had been my intention to improve the wiki articles on multiple individuals. I wish that discussion about those you mention had been raised on-Wikipedia, earlier, instead of saving them up to use now. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to be responsive to those that raise concerns politely in a good faith manner, on-Wikipedia. But it is difficult to do so when those concerns have not previously been raised, on-Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have mentioned my concern about the Dickson article before, here. The Peralta connection I only became aware of recently. I am asking you politely: Do you deny having created the Dickson article here on Wikipedia to support Xenubarb's campaign? --JN466 06:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I recall I became aware of the candidates through following the news, and previously decided to improve the articles on them. I later contacted her for assistance with free-use image help, that was all. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
However, I restate again that I always strive to defer to community consensus and on-Wikipedia processes — even when they are contrary to my views. I have changed my behavior. I post to talk pages of multiple WikiProjects with notices of new article creation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's good. It still leaves me concernd -- your article on Dickson was so promotional as to elicit the comments quoted from the AfD in the collapsed box. Your revised article on Joel Anderson, the other candidate standing against Stone, ended with the words
"a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento".[28] Anderson also received endorsements from the California Republican Assembly and from Congressman Duncan Hunter.[29] In his endorsement, Congressman Hunter called Anderson "a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."[30]"
You did not create a similar article on Jeff Stone, the third candidate, whom Xenubarb did not want to be elected, extolling his virtues and endorsements. He does not have a Wikipedia article at all. Before the Peralta election, you added only positive material to his BLP, and only negative material to that of his opponent, Hiram Monserrate. And you got Peralta's article on the main page, three days before the election. That's a lot of dedicated work done on Wikipedia to bias our coverage in favour of one particular side. So please understand that if you do a similar amount of dedicated work covering the campaign against Santorum, and that work is highly controversial on a Wikimedia mailing list because of perceived bias, it raises an alarm bell. And please understand that I am not upset about the Santorum article because you have written it, but because of what it is. That it's written by an editor with a history of political bias adds something, but it would be just the same if someone else had written it. --JN466 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you actually recall any recent interaction at all between us? I think the last one was several months ago, on the Werner Erhard talk page. Apart from that, I cannot recall having corresponded with you this year. --JN466 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I already stated I agree with you about not nominating to DYK articles relating to elections, prior to those elections. I already stated I have taken the articles you mentioned off my watchlist. I already stated that I post about new article creation to talk pages of WikiProjects, specifically to get more on-Wikipedia feedback. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. --JN466 07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting this off the drama board

The interest taken by Jayen466 in Cirt's editing seems exceptional, to say the least. To avoid further disputes over asserted wikihounding, I suggest that Jayen be required to utilize one of the following options:
  1. Stop interacting with Cirt.
  2. Open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt with whatever concerns have been accumulated so far, then stop interacting with Cirt unless the RFC indicates a consensus otherwise.
Cirt would also be directed to stop interacting with Jayen, except in the context of responding to an RFC, if any, and as indicated by the RFC. This resolves the problem, without requiring a consensus determination at AN/I of whether Jayen's complaints are valid, which will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Chester Markel (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: My reply to queries raised by Jayen on my user talk page was "good enough" for him — that is until the above proposal of an interaction ban was raised, here. Then, he raised more issues here, in response. I would very much like to be able to respond on-Wikipedia on my user talk page or on article talk pages to issues raised, , and I will strive to address them. I have modified my behavior. I defer to community consensus, even when it is contrary to my stated opinion on those issues. I engage in quality review processes including GA, peer review, and FA. I have posted about my new article creation to WikiProject talk pages. I will continue to try to improve being responsive to concerns, when they are raised to me on-Wikipedia on my user talkpage or an article talk page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The only reason I approached Cirt on their talk page was because I was considering filing an RfC/U. Contacting an editor on their talk page to resolve the situation is a prerequisite step for that. However, I considered the response I received from Cirt on their talk page satisfactory; not stellar, but satisfactory under the circumstances, and had decided not to take the matter further. --JN466 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayen, for saying my response was satisfactory - I appreciate that. I will strive to work towards more stellar responses in the future, and modify my behavior with regard to seeking out additional feedback of my quality improvement work, as I have already indicated. -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're welcome. --JN466 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jusdafax in support of interaction ban for Jayen466, and raise the concept of a topic ban

I support the interaction ban, since it is my view that Jayen's Off-wiki anti-Cirt activity at 'Wikipedia Review' shows evident bad faith, not to mention years of stalking Cirt On-wiki dispite clear policy against it. To be specific: It is my carefully considered opinion that Jayen466 is in long-term multiple violations of sections of WP:HARASSMENT, namely 'Wikihounding' and 'Off-wiki Harassment', and I think Cirt is way too nice to offer a mutual topic ban in the face of Jayen's highly dubious record.

In addition, I commented Cirt's talk page yesterday when I noticed the thread by Jayen466. Here's where this gets very interesting to me personally; this reply by Jayen466 where he states at the end to another editor that "Your and Jusdafax's past interests in Scientology are duly noted."

Huh? "Duly noted?" I must confess, I was puzzled to remember any edits to "past interests in Scientology" unless he meant a fairly minor player whose article I have worked on more in the past than recently, Ford Greene, an attorney who won a couple cases against Scientology in court but who has numerous other facets to his career. (I am a former resident of Marin County, CA, and am aware of Mr. Greene as a local political figure.) After leaving a brisk reply to Jayen466 on Cirt's talkpage, I went on with my day until it hit me that I edited David Miscavige a couple times way back there. A search of the edit history of Scientology's leader indeed revealed a couple edits with the last in August, 2009. I believe I have several talk page edits there from that era on the Miscavige page about a series of articles in a newspaper in Florida, but I honestly can't recall any others. Possibly one or two at the article about the headquarters Scientology has out in the desert? Perhaps way back there...

So allow me to expand on my 'brisk reply'. It very much appears that either Jayen's memory is extremely long regarding even the most casual Scientology editors, or he actually keeps some kind of enemies list regarding them and issues veiled threats as a chilling effect to shut them up. All in all, not a very pretty picture... Jayen knows more about my editing Scientology than I do myself.

Perhaps Jayen466 can explain himself regarding his surprising knowledge of my extremely skimpy portfolio of Scientology edits, but if you ask me, it totally fails the smell test per WP:DUCK. This sure looks like a case of the pot (Jayen) calling the kettle black. I've now seen enough to raise the issue for your consideration regarding a topic ban on new religions for Jayen466. As I see the facts from personal experience, enough is enough. Cirt is a valued editor, more than willing to work with others, and is too nice a guy if you ask me. The same can not be said of Jayen466, who until the past day or so I have had no interaction whatsoever, as far as I know. Again, I say to the Wikipedia community, enough is enough. Jusdafax 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, can you explain this behavior? -- Cirt (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This issue seems far too complex for definitive resolution here, except as far as non-interaction between the users, excluding further dispute resolution processes, since the number of accusations and counterclaims is immense. It should really be taken to RFC, or arbcom. Chester Markel (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Chester Markel, I have already said I would agree to non-interaction, as you suggest. I will strive to do so, even if the other party refuses to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Cirt is still too nice. I strongly disagree with Chester Markel. Let's hear from Jayen466 first regarding his obsessive knowledge of people who edit Scientology articles even very casually and long ago. I daresay I am not the only editor here who would find his reply of interest before we bump this up to ArbCom. Jusdafax 07:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I remembered you posting about Cirt's Scientology editing on their talk page at the time when Cirt was asked to step back from the topic area, and thought I'd seen you around some AfDs in the topic area. I was wrong about that, and apologise. (I'm not familiar with Ford Greene). --JN466 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I have this straight. You say your comment about my "past interests" being "duly noted" in Scientology topics is based on a talk page comment on Cirt's page months ago, and you "thought" I was at some AfD's? The August 2009 edit to David Miscavige is not a factor? It's nice to get an apology I suppose, but you were really throwing your weight around prior to me raising these issues here. What do you say to a one year topic ban for you on Scientology or any other 'new religion'? I think that would go a long way towards resolving community concerns about your numerous questionable edits and Off-wiki attacks on Cirt. Jusdafax 08:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This proposal would address a number of problems.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk about 'chilling effects.' If you folks are criticized, you certainly ensure that the critic gets hit on the nose. StaniStani  12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Jayen466, this thread is about you and your interactions with Cirt, and I want to stay focused on that. Could I ask you to comment on my proposal? Are you prepared to step away from edits and comments to new religion articles for a year? Also you have not commented on your Off-wiki activity at 'Wikipedia Review' which you need to apologize for and stop doing, nor answered my concerns regarding your "duly noted" comment about what you seemed to indicate was my deep involvement with Scientology articles, nor have you replied to my concerns regarding the curious way you appear to invite others to attack Cirt ("they are welcome") in prima facie violation of WP:TAGTEAM. To be blunt, you appear to be involved in WP:BATTLE and I think the community deserves a straight answer from you about these matters, since you have been brought to this board to answer editor concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos in broadly similar terms

In broad terms, I agree with Jusdafax's comments above and think there are some rather significant concerns about Jayen's behaviour. Cirt's list of featured articles speak for themselves - it's always going to be that people who take on more controversial topics are a bit different to the norm and attract more opposition, but without them our encyclopaedia wouldn't be the project it is. There's a level of courage there which I admire - I don't lay any claim to it myself, as most topics I edit are on utterly uncontroversial subjects that have too few editors rather than too many disagreeing ones. However, opposition on the facts in a particular situation or set of related situations is one thing - and, I should add, a necessary thing, as noone is perfect! - but the sort of thing we see here spanning multiple unrelated topics over 3½ years suggests an unhealthy obsession which is best dealt with IMO by a topic or interaction ban. Any valid concerns can be easily dealt with by neutral editors, as is the case in most places. In my own dealings with Cirt (apart from our first, which is documented in a pulled RfC somewhere :P) I've found Cirt to be a productive, cooperative editor who engages in careful research on the topics covered and is willing to seek and listen to other/differing opinions on their writing. Chester may be right that ArbCom needs to look at this situation, but I believe that should be a final step taken only if the community proves unable to handle it. Orderinchaos 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. I approached Cirt on their talk page, per DR policy, and Cirt at least acknowledged that featuring a political candidate on the main page immediately prior to an election is inappropriate. I will not take that matter further; if someone else wants to, they're welcome. --JN466 07:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"If someone else wants to, they are welcome?" "...welcome?" That sure sounds like code for "Somebody else bash Cirt for a while." I have looked into your edit history a bit as a result of your forcing me to look at my own at David Miscavige per my section above, and I don't see this matter as resolved at all. I renew my call for a topic ban for you, based on what appears to be a number of very troubling facts including off-wiki attacks on Cirt at Wikipedia Review, which you do not reply to here, and at the very least should apologize for and cease at once, and again, this bizarre invitation to others to "take the matter further" which is on the face of it is highly disingenuous, in my view. Jusdafax 08:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Supporting OrderInChaos's point, and some more thoughts

I think Jayen's comments and continual defense of his actions point to a problem here without considering the points that a) his interactions with Cirt are unhealthy for both of them in their relationships to the community and the further point made by others that b) he has an unhealthy long term obsession with interacting with Cirt in a negative light. Cirt, though unpolitic in how he approaches some situations and clearly wrong in others, has demonstrated by his withdrawal from major Scientology editing and by reacting actively to the concerns of other users shows a willingness to be flexable and an attempt to work with the community's consensus. Cirt and Jayen interacting simply has not been fruitful, and Cirt has acknowledged that he would be fine with having an interaction ban and/or topic ban related to Jayen. At this point, I think community health would be benefited by a reciprocal ban where these conversations could be addressed by neutral parties, and perhaps identified parties, before either editor is brought into contact with eachother. Simply put, too many people have invested emotional energy into these arguments which often prove unfruitful in developing the community or in content because they are often either a) incredibly retrospective (if you have noticed most of the proof above has been at least 5-6 months old) or b) incredibly unfounded such as can be understood in Drmies earlier comment about Santorum. It's not that Cirt is right in all of his actions, but rather, the method of discussion of them is becoming extremely unproductive and time consuming in unnecessary ways for multiple good content developers (Jayen and Cirt included), Sadads (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Suppressing dissent is certainly on the agenda here - anyone scrolling up this big wall of text would think the worst of Jayen466 - until they looked more closely. The arguments against him are circular and at times meaningless. 'Jayen's comments and continual defense of his actions point to a problem here...' Gosh, he defends himself when attacked! How awful. StaniStani  12:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. One point that often gets missed is it's easier to scrutinise when one doesn't have to play into someone's misguided campaign in order to do so. I've seen this in other debates in pedia hotspots, where people don't feel they can criticise actions they disagree with by someone they largely agree with because of how that disagreement might be used politically. Orderinchaos 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

topic ban on Scientology related articles

  • I support a complete topic ban on User Cirt from anything related to Scientology. The en Wikipedia project has been used as a anonymous mouthpiece for anti Scientology activism for far too long. As for a relating ban between Cirt and Jayen - the issues with Cirt's editing are well documented and welL known, Jayen is simply brave enough and intelligent enough to point those issues out and suggestions of a condition that would stop those well founded complaints within wiki policy would be to censor them when they clearly require vocalizing. I love this project and I hate to see it abused for the active promotion of personal positions and I am afraid User Cirt has become a master of that dark art. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Can I point out that this discussion has had nothing to do with Scientology, and Cirt has not been actively adding any new content to Scientology other then old FAs which he has worked on. This has been a voluntary removal from the topic area. I don't see how you came to this conclusion/set of comments,Sadads (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Almost everything that user Cirt does here is one way or another related to anti Scientology, if its about a restaurant it is really about someones brother who is a friend of a Scientologist. If its about a politician it is in support of anti Scientology activist posts on anonymous that vocalize to support that politician etc. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob, can you provide diffs of recent editing on the subject which you object to? -- Cirt (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you want diffs for, you know exactly what you do here its indisputable. - Your continued development and expansion of this article Santorum (neologism) is part of the type of editing you continue with and imo is a shame on the project Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That does not have to do with the area of your proposed "topic ban on". Please provide recent diffs of objectionable editing within the topic, or retract your proposal. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Everything you do here is associated to your anti Scientology activism. Everything, that is what you do here , that is why you are here - to propagate anti Scientology content using the wikipedia platform at every opportunity - that is also what you do at WP:Commons. I support a complete edit restriction on anything to do with it, either specifically or tangentially. You will have a few supporters of people that also support anonymous and anti Scientology positions but in a way that is one of the worst aspects of your contributions here - other less experienced users see you getting away with it and some even look up to you when actually you are only using and demeaning the projects neutrality in support of your activism. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. To slap this proposal in here without proper evidence and discussion is unfair to Cirt. StaniStani  12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stanistani, I am happy to agree with on this point. And the accusation made above ("everything you do here") is painted with such a big brush that the metaphor is practically meaningless--I got to meet Cirt (if I remember correctly) through some activity related to one Bacon Cup or another. We both worked on Seduced by Bacon. I have Bacon: A Love Story, a book for which Cirt wrote the GA, on my shelf. Are we seriously going to believe that bacon is a Scientological issue? Should Cirt be blocked from editing bacon articles (or, God forbid, writing Tofu bacon) because everything [he does] here is associated with [his] anti Scientology activism? Come on. You are calling for a complete ban, in effect. I think it is immediately obvious that this accusation is unwarranted, and I think Off2riorob should take those words back: they constitute a serious personal attack and display an utter lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I have made no attempt to follow Cirt's editing regarding Scientology, and so my comment does not have anything to do with it. However, like Drmies, I am familiar with Cirt's bacon-related editing, and I think I've interacted with him on some other topics (though I can't say from the top of my head what). The point is, to say that all of Cirt's editing is anti-Scientology is certainly hyperbole. LadyofShalott 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose - this is an overreaction. Cirt has in the past pushed the envelope of the 5 pillars, but seems to have pulled back substantially lately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is anyone else struggling to see the relevance of this proposal to what is taking place? The locus here is an article about a neologism related to a right-wing American politician who, as far as I know, has no link with Scientology or anti-Scientology; the behaviour under discussion is not Cirt's, but Jayen's. Orderinchaos 19:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Drmies, LadyofShalott, Rocksanddirt and Orderinchaos, and suggest archiving this tangential proposal which has failed to gain traction. Jusdafax 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I read the whole thing

Seriously - when a change of a word from an odd use of "affect" to a proper use of "effect" (given above by Cirt as evidence) is given as an example of "hounding", I am a tad bemused. Jayen466 is imperfect, and so is Cirt. So are we all. Jayen466 has appearently used proper WP processes and procedures, and does not appear to be trying to make Cirt disappear. Is TheWebsiteWhichMustNotBeNamed important? I think not very. So I dismiss all that stuff entirely. The Scientology issue seems to be connected in some way - I suggest that both editors steer clear of all Scientology topics for a while as one way to defuse some of this. The deadline is not coming very fast. Lastly, will someone close this? There are clearly good editors with opinions on both sides, and no consensus for either side is likely this decade. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Months ago I had already severely curtailed my degree of editing within the topic of Scientology, removed hundreds of pages from my watchlist, and focused mainly on GAs and FAs. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has continued to follow me to other unrelated topics. -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Is that true, Cirt? To the best of my recollection, our only points of contact since January have been one brief exchange with you and another editor on the Werner Erhard talk page, and my comments yesterday regarding the Santorum page. --JN466 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The behavior has gone on for over three years, Jayen. It needs to stop. I have already offered to a mutual restriction, and to strive to stay away from your editing. I hope that you will do the same going forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In short, my case is made. Collect (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could some friendly admin please close this execrable pile of verbiage? StaniStani  15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Soylent Green is people

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.
This is not the venue for six degrees of Xenu. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to connect the dots between Scientology and santorum.

Much like the Daryl Wine Bar article, santorum is indirectly related to Scientology and a case can easily be made that this is what has motivated Cirt in these recent edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And an addendum: 27 May, Cirt creates The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the record, I was unaware of that blog entry until Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) posted it just now. I had intended to improve the article on Santorum (neologism) for months. These new articles are independently notable. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) got his chronology wrong. That blog post he linked is not from 6 May 2011 - it is from 5 May 2008 - three years ago!!! I have never seen that blog post before. -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Says May 5, 2008, actually. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Quite right, thank you, 28bytes. I request that Delicious carbuncle please redact this inappropriateness, and remove his mistake. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I did get my dates wrong. Although the chronology is not as neat, it does establish the connection between Savage and Scientology. Cirt, for the record, were you aware of the incident that Savage refers to in his blog post? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • No, Delicious carbuncle, I was not. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, your correction is still wrong. I returned from a wikibreak in 2011, not 2010. Literally three years after your spurious blog post link. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • So the assertion is that an article on a book about adoption and parenting (which has been widely covered in reliable sources), written by an unquestionably notable author/pundit/activist, constitutes an "anti-Scientology" article because, three years previous, that pundit made an anti-Scientology blog post? I'm dubious. I think a substantial fraction of the encyclopedia consists of pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology (or, often, both at the same time) articles by that measure. And I see nothing in the articles about Savage's books to support a risible claim that they are being used to coatrack an anti-Scientology POV. Why is this a meritable accusation? Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read this whole section and this is absolutely the craziest thing in it. So Dan Savage, a sex columnist who has generally nothing to do with Scientology, writes a blog post about them, and that prompts a Wikipedia editor to start contributing to Savage related articles three years later? I've seen more plausible theories from Birthers. Sit down and think about what you are proposing here, because you really should be embarrassed by this. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to have missed the posting date on that original blog post, but it establishes the connection between Savage and Scientology. You and Serpent's Choice may find the idea that Cirt is creating articles about Savage's (admittedly quite notable) books as some kind of reward for Savage's attitude toward Scientology to be far-fetched, but one only needs to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant to see that similar activity has been recognized in the past. This is just more of the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I see neither a parallel nor relevance. The restaurant article wound up being deleted on notability grounds; ultimately, the coverage was run-of-the-mill (although it survived its first AFD). Savage's books are unquestionably notable. Even in this crazy AN/I section, I don't see any claims that these articles are being written improperly, or with any specific bias. And the connection you're implying is so tenuous that virtually any article could be considered equally related. Zacarias Moussaoui's prosecution was presided over by the same judge who had ruled against Scientology in RTC v. Lerma et al. (1995). If Cirt -- or any other editor -- improved the quality of our coverage of that prosecution (or any of Brinkema's other notable cases), are you claiming those would be anti-Scientology edits? Even if Cirt really is writing these articles because their author made an anti-Scientology comment 3 years ago ... so what? It's neither possible nor appropriate to pass judgment on the reasons why editors submit the content they do, only on the neutrality and value of the content submitted. I'm struggling to understand this argument as anything other than disparagement. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Savage's books are unquestionably notable. I have made no suggestion that they are otherwise. Is there anything wrong with Cirt or any other editor creating articles on Savage's books? Not at all. But there is something else at work here that will be missed if one looks only at superficial questions like "Did this break any rules?". Much as Cirt larded Knight and Day (a Tom Cruise film) with negative reviews (see this version), they have done the opposite in the articles on Savage's books. Each of those contains numerous positive quotes that could easily become blurbs on the book jackets. Cirt made the movie article a hit piece by including a ridiculous number of cherry-picked quotes from reviews. They have made the book articles into nothing more than adverts. No rules have been broken in the process.
I am not claiming that every edit made by Cirt is related to Scientology, but I will claim that the vast majority of content edits made by Cirt are directly or indirectly related to Scientology. I have raised a number of issues on the BLP noticeboard about Scientology-related articles. In many of those cases, the BLP violations were originally inserted by Cirt. I have previously linked to Cirt's anti-Scientology stories on Wikinews. There is currently a discussion happening on Jimbo's talk page about a file Cirt uploaded to Commons. Take a look at the Free-use Scientology-related video project on Wikiversity. This is an example of project-wide advocacy of a particular viewpoint. Even if there is nothing wrong with a single edit or a single article, the totality of Cirt's activities project-wide should make their bias abundantly clear. Jayen466 and I have offered diffs and links to make our case. If the community choses to react by ignoring the issue because it is unpleasant or calls into question our policies, that is up to them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I last edited Knight and Day half a year ago. I removed hundreds of pages relating to the topic of Scientology from my watchlist months ago. My creating new articles relating to notable books by Dan Savage has nothing to do with Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So because the coiner a specific neologism happened to make a blog entry that mentioned Scientology at one point that's a connection? This sounds like a fun game! May I play too? Let's try showing that my edits are all connected to scientology. Let's see, I recently made an edit to Big O notation, which is used in a lot of theorems proved by Paul Erdős, and people care about the Erdős number and the Erdős–Bacon number, which connects to Kevin Bacon who is in Hollywood and lots of actors are scientologists. Hmm, what other recent edits have I made? Well, there's an edit to Saint Ange which is a movie, so that's obviously connected. Wee, this is fun! JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Well, I am fairly sure that Savage has mentioned Scientology more than once [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] etc...
Discussion about Scientology is so endemic in popular culture that one can link Sesame Street, the Iraq War and the consumption of non-bovine cheese to it without any serious difficulty. This does not mean they are Scientology-linked topics or that editing in them is somehow related to Scientology. Most of the topics I've been asked for an opinion on by Cirt in recent years are either political or local, and entirely unrelated to CoS topics. Orderinchaos 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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.
No consensus for administrative action. Further complaints, if any, should be pursued via the dispute resolution process.Chester Markel (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action is sought here?

What exactly is the point of this discussion and what administrative action is being sought here? The original post includes an accusation that User:Jayen466 is "hounding" User:Cirt. "Hounding," on Wikipedia has a specific meaning as part of the policy on harassment. Here's a very pertinent part of the language of that policy:

  • The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

While I see no convincing evidence that Jayen is excessively following Cirt around, let's pretend he is. It only becomes hounding if he is doing so "for no overriding reason," and it only becomes a clearly "serious matter" if it is accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior." I don't see any evidence of the latter form of behavior in the presentation here. Is Jayen being tendentious, attacking Cirt or otherwise being disruptive? Also, I believe that the very post on Cirt's talk page that resulted in this AN/I is itself an obvious example of the "overriding reason" why Jayen has taken notice of several different, recent subjects that Cirt has edited. Some here may not agree that this is a sufficient reason, but I would assume that Jayen does think so. In short, WP:HOUNDING seems like a pretty big stretch, and I highly doubt either the community or any administrator is going to act on that accusation.

So where does that leave us? I suggest that if Cirt and Jayen respectively feel that the other party is exhibiting a pattern of behavior that is problematic that they both consider next steps in the dispute resolution process. Is it time for two RFC/U's?Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question in your topic title (assuming it wasn't rhetorical), I gathered that an interaction ban was being sought. In which case, ANI is one of the proper venues to seek community support for a ban. Obviously that failed, the suggestion of RFC/U seems appropriate. -- Atama 21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I also had some relevant questions for Jayen466 that he ignored, or perhaps did not see. I think prior to any next stage(s) that it would be helpful to get a bit more information from the subject of the thread, and I think it was closed a bit quickly.Jusdafax 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that parallel RfC/Us are the way forward here, and two qualifying certifiers can be found on each side, then I am open to that. While I thought that Cirt and I had more or less agreed above that there was no need for this, Cirt still seems to feel that we haven't reached an understanding. As I mentioned above, the reason I contacted Cirt on their talk page yesterday was indeed to find out whether an RfC/U was necessary, or whether we could come to some sort of understanding and fruitful exchange about my concerns. So if there are still outstanding issues, perhaps RfC/Us are the way forward.
As for the counterclaim of hounding advanced by Cirt and others here, in my view two or three civil article talk page discussions over a space of four or five months do not amount to a good case that I have unduly focused on editing or influencing articles created by Cirt. That frequency of interaction seems within expected parameters in a project like this. --JN466 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
@Jusdafax. I disagree. The thread was going nowhere. The original post was vaguely asking for help with their interactions because there was a perception of hounding. I see no hounding (per my comment above). What followed was a mishmash of proposals from two sides of the issue variously against Jayen and Cirt. None of these were going to gain any consensus. You may pose unanswered questions to Jayen on his talk page. You may also comment further on his behavior at RFC/U if you or someone else starts one. For my money this was a great close. My only complaint is that RD didn't also scoop my comment up into the archived discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the failure to scoop was initially accidental, but then I decided the accident was fortuitous, as a useful prompt for discussion on ways forward after the closure. Rd232 talk 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Jayen, one issue that may be relevant here is that you respond to threads on Wikipedia Review (about Cirt and others) by arriving at articles that person is editing, even when the threads contain what could be seen as harassment of editors. It creates a non-level playing field, where you may edit freely, but the target of the thread is attacked in public offwiki if s/he opposes you.
I accept that this is unintentional on your part. A large problem in these cases is that individual actors don't factor in the overall effect on the target—especially the emotional effect—of the group action. It's a mistake we all make. If you could bear it in mind going forward, it would help to avoid the perception that anyone is being targeted.
I do agree with you about the santorum article, but there's strong consensus that it should exist, so it's hard to see what can be done about it now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I do understand that it must be unpleasant to see oneself criticised by a group on an external forum. I would undertake to reduce my involvement there, and be more mindful of the effect such discussions might have on an editor who has no way to reply at that forum. If my comments there have caused Cirt, you or anyone else offence, then I apologise. --JN466 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Jayen, above you write, in regard to Cirt's editing, "As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved." Yet I also see that you are soliciting support for an RFC/U against Cirt.[18] Are there unresolved issues? Are a pair of RFC/Us the best next step in dispute resolution?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Cirt's most recent comments on their talk page do not make me feel that the matter is resolved, or that my points have in good faith been taken on board. --JN466 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec; to Jayen) Thank you for that, and for the apology.
I want to make clear that it's not criticism that's the issue, it's attacks, some of them very personal, sexist, and protracted, going on in some instances for years (I'm not referring to you here, I should stress). Every editor who responds to those threads sees himself only as an individual actor, whereas he is, of course, part of the whole, and it's the whole the target sees and feels.
My advice, for what it's worth, is not to open an RfC on Cirt at this time, because that just looks like more of the same. Wait six months to allow the heat to drain from the situation, then do it if the issues have continued. In the meantime, do your best to avoid Cirt, and I hope Cirt will take on board any criticism, including the perception that he edits a little too much to further what might be personal interests. We all do this (no one wants to write about things that bore them), but it's important not to let it cross into open advocacy. If both of you would make efforts in those directions, the issue might resolve itself. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'll take it under advisement and sleep over it. --JN466 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Thank you, SlimVirgin, for the wise words. I will take your advice and try to make efforts to avoid editing in the manner you describe. I hope that Jayen will take your advice as well, and we can all try to back down from all the heat that has been generated recently about this. Yes, I do happen to feel disturbed and upset by Jayen's campaign to follow me around Wikipedia for three years and foment opposition to me both on and offsite. But I also do recognize that legitimate concerns have been raised, and I will strive to adjust my behavior accordingly. I will continue to listen to others, to solicit feedback about new-article-creation, and work on improving myself. My concern about being wikihounded for three years, and my strong desire to respond to good faith criticisms made about me on-Wikipedia — are not mutually exclusive. Though I wish for the wikihounding to stop, I still will strive to respond to the criticism. -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Self promotion at Houston mayoral election, 2011

This user keeps making really bad edits in Houston mayoral election, 2011 and putting himself in the running [[19]]. After looking up the information, he only has [[20]] as a website stating that he's running with no additional notices in the media. After reverting his edits several times, I just had to look for some way to resolve this issue. --Hourick (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

user has been notified of this discussion. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Will this do? "Two candidates have declared against her. Republican Fernando Herrera, a firefighter ... The other announced challenger is Kevin Simms".[21] Fences&Windows 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rick, the Houston Chronicle citation looks good to me. No mention of him being a doctor, though. I put this article in my watch list. Liberal Classic (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've just blocked Drkevins (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. He was advised repeatedly to bring his concerns to the talk page but kept making the same edit again and again—adding information not present in the following source and breaking an interwiki link. I also invited him to join the discussion at the article's talk page, but he refused to. The block should both prevent further disruption of the article and bring him to the discussion table on his user talk page, since that's the only place he can edit currently. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just as a mater of interest, could this be someone trying to dis-credit the guy, might it be worth considering a username block pending confirmation this is who it looks like ? Mtking (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to raise the username issue at his user talk page. I don't expect a response from him, though you're right, the username concerns could be enough to escalate the block to indefinite. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't spot the article until I examined what kind of damage he had done. The edits he had done were highly suspicious, and figured he just needed to get familiar with the process IF he was legit. Either way, I'm glad that it was resolved. --Hourick (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yuufa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

removed the "resolved" tag - we appear to have a duck. Active Banana (bananaphone 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks that way, block this new account, change the block on the first account and make the page semi-protected for 2 weeks, with a bit of luck the guy will loose interest. Mtking (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess you all are way ahead of me. I opened a sockpuppet case here:[22]. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I started to say that there's a mitigating circumstance: another editor challenged whether he was Simms and effectively questioned the appropriateness of his username.[23] If he'd used the new account to discuss the situation, I'd be fine. Since he used the new account to go right back down the path of edit warring, I endorse the indef block on the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


RabidZionist (talk · contribs) is the newly created account of an editor who formerly edit-warred as (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), 149.171.184. (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs). He has persistently been adding Category:Racism to various article about Jews or Jewish movements, while removing (among other things) Category:Holocaust denial from Michael A. Hoffman II. When the articles in question were finally semi-protected, he chose the name "RabidZionist" (though he's obviously not a Zionist). His editing seems agenda-driven and disruptive, as does his choice of username, which likely also violates our username policy. I've brought the issue here for discussion and administrative action. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Block on username alone, I say. → ROUX  01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've soft-blocked the account solely for the username, which is clealry provocative and probably offensive. I've also hard-blocked the small range from which all those IPs come for two weeks. Would appreciate it if a CU could see to any good-faith editors on that range, though it's quite small. {{checkuser needed}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I saw that guy on the Lubavitcher dude's article, on about racism towards goyim and all. He was adding it as IPs then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)



as the original complainant has decided to descend to incivility.

I have been having a problem with another editor, Milowent.

In my very first interaction with the user, he accused me of being a WP:SOCK. His entire basis was that I agreed with the Nominator [24]. I sent him a message on his talk page, objecting to the unfounded accusation [25]. His reasoning was that he felt I wasn't being civil. How that related to my being a sock, I don't quite understand. His next attempt was more subtle, but essentially the same thing, citing, as his reasoning, that I pointed to Policies [26]. I tried to explain on his talk page that I'm just the kind of person who puts effort into being informed and thorough [27]. When I brought the civility and accusation problems to Wikiquette, he responded with another accusation, while saying he would drop it [28]. Some time went by without him making another accusation, until yesterday, when he started making insinuations again, [29] [30].

Besides the incivility and outright insults, which are relatively minor, I am pretty much at my wit's end, with him implicitly and explicitly calling my a sock, and I have no idea how to get him to just drop it.

Homo Logica (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While I would agree that Milowent has been very vigorous (perhaps overly so?) in his/her responses to you, it seems to me that you have invited vigorous responses by the tenacity of your arguments at the AfD in question. In my experience AfD !votes are best made and stated in a single argument, rather than beginning a lengthy discussion and responding to every subsequent post. I don't think there's anything actionable by an admin here on either side, but I would caution both of you to avoid one another for a while. The AfD is now closed so there's no need to drag the conflict out further. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
My objection isn't to his general responses to me. It's the fact that he is repeatedly calling me a sock with no basis, and not filing a formal complaint (because he knows it isn't true).
Homo Logica (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that there's little to be done here. Milowent's questions about whether or not you are a truly new and independent account holder, or have edited previously under another name, are not the first time anyone has been asked such questions. They fell short of a formal accusation of socking, in my opinion. You have said (if I read it correctly) that you are not the same person who posted previously in the AfD and for now, that must be that. Milowent and the rest of us must either AGF or file a report. I suggest you leave this for now Homo Logica because trying to get Milowent to formally withdraw something s/he only ever raised informally is going to be difficult. I assume that Milowent is watching this discussion and therefore will ask Milowent here not to raise the issue of previous accounts again unless any evidence for this appears. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: editor is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, already raised issue at WQA. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And since he has started making the accusation again, I escalated the issue. Since I wasn't sure what to do, I did this on advice from other users. I did not hide the fact that I filed an objection at WQA, and I specifically mentioned it. Homo Logica (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have little wiki-love for ol Milo, but you do appear to have a pretty adept hand at citing WP policy and guideline pages in the course of discussions with him. Hard to believe that a "new" user has become so familiar with wikipedia-space that they rattle off obscurities i.e. WP:VALINFO, WP:ESSAYDEL, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, with ease. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to back me up, Tarc, despite us being arch-enemies of comic book proportions.:-)--Milowenttalkblp-r 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Response from the Accused Editor Milowent: I have no idea why HL is continuing to pursue this silliness. At Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Milowent, I said "I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD." I did. What he calls my continuation is an exchange on his talkpage were I noted that User:GlasgowGuyScotland, a new account who showed up on the same AfD and posted on HL's page complaining that I was a "dedicated asshole"[31] and on my talk page seeking "help" to decide whether I was a "cunt, a prick, or a motherfucking asshole",[32], had been blocked as a sock (though HL suggested twice in our exchange that GGS was a "new user", which was ridiculously laughable from my perspective). (The nominator in that AfD was also blocked as a sock! A very peculiar AfD. The article is about pig slaughter, not Israel or pornography or Pippa Middleton or something where you expect drama like this.) I see that HL took this as a new accusation that I thought he was a sock, which I really did not intend. I was continuing to marvel at the bizarre nature of that AfD. But looking back at it, I can see why he may have thought otherwise. Therefore, I hereby pledge that I, Milowent, shall never make any accusation that Homo Logica is a sock or ever edited under any other name other than Homo Logica from the beginning of time. I will accept without further comment that Homo Logica is extremely familiar with Wikipedia policies (e.g., User_talk:Paulmcdonald#Votestacking) despite his short tenure on the project, i.e., I will not comment anymore of HL's mastery of wikipedia bureaucracy. In the meantime, I will use this opportunity to invite all editors to help source or otherwise process the last 5,000 unreferenced BLPs on the project at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. Its a fun project, even more fun that ANI. Cheers.--Milowenttalkblp-r 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Invitation accepted. Nice plug! One down, 5044 to go. Unfortunately I had to send it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me check, to be certain that I understand the concern. Before I went into a discussion on deleting an article, I reviewed whatever policies I could find that were relevant, before forming a decision, and responding. I'm literally being attacked for actually being informed. Honestly, you people wonder why there is a drop in new editors? It has to do with this. Right here. This is just insanity. I think I'm done with Wikipedia. You guys attack people if they don't know policies. You attack them if they do. And if somebody doesn't follow policies, it's too much to ask that people within the community ask them to stop. I haven't, at any point, asked for any official rebuke. It's actually pretty pretty consistent. Somebody, talk to him, and ask him to stop. The fact that I'm getting attacked for that... that's the reason I'm leaving, and that's the reason that others leave. A collective, community-wide apathy for some of the core principles WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If it doesn't get to the point of earning them a block, or a ban, then it isn't worth asking them to stop, and heaven forbid somebody actually reads the policies.
Homo Logica (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • HL, I said I would stop and I will. Sorry to see you have quit, it seems quite rash for you to do so. The irony is that I have stopped newby editors from quitting wikipedia many times when their contributions were unfairly attacked, and I would for you as well if you had created any articles. Godspeed, HL.--Milowenttalkblp-r 15:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think you have understood the concern so thanks for checking! If you are a newcomer to WP you may not have realised that there is occasionally a bit of a problem with well established editors making second accounts in order to support themselves from an apparently independent source in arguments. Either that, or to establish a new identity without taint from an old one. A sign of this is often that these 'new' editors begin with much more apparent knowledge of WP's procedures and software. Unfortunately this does mean that diligent editors who are quick to learn, but genuinely new to WP, can get looked at askance. I'm sorry if you've been caught up in this collateral damage but personally I'm quite happy to accept your reassurance that you have not, in fact, edited here under any other name. Milowent has agreed, above, not to question your antecedents any further either and as far as I can see has not posted anything recently doing so. Nor has s/he ever made what I'd regard as a personal attack - though arguments at AfD can get heated sometimes and you may have jumped unknowing into a bear pit! If it feels too harsh an environment, stay away from AfD until you get a better feel of how WP works, edit some articles and please don't regard this process as having been an attack on you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

personal attack: Pangurban1

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.
Pangurban1 has been warned. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pangurban1 (talk · contribs) New, SPA account. Attacking other editor by mispelling name into synonym for feces and implying mental defect or learning disorder [[33]]. Previously made similar comment implying incompetence [[34]], was told comment inappropriate [[35]] (Note: Based on the escalating pattern of disruption, I didn't feel WQA would be an effective forum for resolution)Gerardw (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Those comments aren't very friendly, and a similar one was directed at Jasper Deng (saying "Dung" was an obvious insult, of course). But the latter placed an NPA-4im warning on Pangurban1's talk page, and that should be it for now. If they proceed to insult other editors, they'll probably be blocked for a short while, but until they do, given that they've received a final warning, there is no administrative action called for. Gerard, those templates and warnings are there for a reason--to give the editor the opportunity to make the decision to act appropriately. Dragging them off to ANI disrupts that a bit. Patience is a virtue.

    I propose we close this--even if further insults occur, the regular AIV process will suffice. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, this editor is canvassing other editors to come support his point of view, after already being told not to do it. In the content dispute, Gerardw and I have been opposing this editor's insertion of several sentences that violate WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Pangurban1 turned to these personal attacks after I told him/her about these policies which he/she claims he/she isn't violating.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, thought it isn't a very egregious call for canvassing, in my opinion--I presume not everyone in the school would automatically agree with Pangurban, though there is a likelihood there. But still I propose that no action is necessary at this point, not yet. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Now this requires some sort of action.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, stop arguing and edit-warring with the guy on his talk page. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
My comments weren't personal attacks (which he/she marked as such) and I wasn't edit warring - this was the first revert on that page. What concerns me is that in a content dispute, I don't seem to be able to get this user to understand policies. I understand the content of the section in question well, and agree with Gerardw's assertion about the policies. See Talk:Los Angeles Unified School District.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This was not an appropriate use of rollback. Please don't do that again. Replacing their comment "Your unsolicited advice is not needed. Thank you" with a {{RPA}} template was not appropriate either. You've already given that editor your 2¢, now's the time to withdraw from their talk page since they've asked you to. If they do anything blockworthy, Drmies or another admin will block them. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, both of us are wrong. He wasn't supposed to mark my comments as personal attacks. "Your unsolicited advice is not needed" was taken as a personal attack because the one about community college and things was one. I don't see if they asked me to withdraw from their talk.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"Your unsolicited advice is not needed. Thank you" is an implicit request for you to stop giving them advice on their talk page. But you are correct that both you and Pangurban1 should not be replacing each other's comments with {{RPA}} when they're not attacks. Anyway, I agree with Drmies that this thread should be closed, so I'm going to do so. You can find me on my talk page if you want to discuss it further. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:POINTy comments on FfD

I believe Dekkappai (talk · contribs) is on for some pointy comments at FfDs. Also, I've recently received a dubious star-award from him. If some adming could look at hid vc.--Damiens.rf 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Drop it Damiens. With your track record and... deft and diplomatic communications skills... more than a few people who come across you have ruffled feathers. Heck, more than a few people would be tempted to support a topic ban from Files for Deletion for you, if such a motion were ever to come up. Now don't get me wrong, I defended you the last time you were the focus of a thread on this page, but if you're going to be a difficult to work with person, you can't realistically expect sunshine and flowers from everyone you come across. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I can agree with that as well. However, someone should still drop a note (dare I say warning?) on Dekkappai (talk · contribs) talk page. Not that we give the person on the other end of the username any other recourse really, but regardless we should still discourage such behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean like this note? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Chastising Comment Damines, after bringing a person to ANI for being dickish to you, turning around within 24 hours and nominating several of their uploads for deletion... is incredibly dickish. If you're wondering why people treat you poorly, there's your answer. (This is not to say that bad images should not be deleted, but to say that waiting a few weeks or asking someone else to do it if they agree with your assessment would both be alternatives that are less likely to piss people off.) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "If some adming could look at hid vc". In English? Fences&Windows 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Right. Because that comment made the situation much better. Raise your hand if you didn't understand that to say "If some admin could look at it". Any hands? Didn't think so. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually I couldn't figure it out either. Was going to ask but saw F&W already did -- ۩ Mask 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Dekkappai stomped off in a huff months ago [36] and periodically returns solely to snark, or worse, at users he dislikes. Fundamentally, he rejects WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:BLP; he's still upset about changes to WP:NFCC; and he targets editors who try to enforce these policies for various forms of abuse. Note this ANI discussion about two months ago [37] and his reaction to being blocked for a flargantly inappropriate edit summary [38] [39]. Comments like this one (which is, admittedly, rather more amusing than his norm) [40] show he lack of current interest in making constructive contributions. Comments like this one [41] are in part intended to reinflame old disputes (in this case, I'm the indirect target; Dekkappai and I had a rather nasty argument on the otherwise undisputed question of a whether a newspaper article which uses a Wikipedia page as its source for information can be used as a valid reference for that claim on that WP page). His edits since late last year have been almost entirely intended as disruptive, and he's trying to provoke a block or other editing sanctions to "prove" his WP:POINTs about Wikipedia. Whether it's prudent to give him what he's asking for is an open question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    Hullaballoo's continued fixation with me is flattering, even if his recollections of our past encounters are increasingly inacurrate and self-aggrandizing. In fact the past clash over the newspaper source to which he refers, was due to his totally unsupported assertion that the LA Times had based an article on a Wikipedia article. This is water under the bridge, as I now recognize that newspapers are not reliable when they print something inappropriate for inclusion at Wikipedia. This was in fact a reference to: Wikipedia:OTTO, and Jimbo Wales approval of that essay. It had nothing to do with Hullaballoo that I am aware of... unless he is in fact a sock of Jimbo Wales?... Dekkappai (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Low-key vandalism campaign from xkcd readers, or coincidence?

On Typesetting I've reverted the wikilink to the disam page back to the specific link text, but there seems to be something of a history with just this one word in the article. One contributor announced the start of a "stickfight" while another made reference to the stick man comic xkcd. There's a discussion about Wikipedia linking and edit wars on on the comic's chat pages here, where they claim to have started an edit war on Property (philosophy). On the other hand, "plain English words" shouldn't be linked and I may just be reading too much into it: is this a low-key vandalism campaign, or just a valid application of WP policy unexplained in the page history? Some guidance welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Further research: Initiating WP edit wars is a tactic used by xkcd game-players to influence the outcome of an article-linking game they play. [42]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I asked User:Seddon to semi-protect xkcd the other day due to repeated attempts to change the first link to point straight to philosophy. Give the xkcders a week or so and they'll get bored and move on. So, yeah, low-key vandalism campaign from xkcd readers seems a fairly likely explanation. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I say we give each one a {{uw-3rr}}, and if they persist, start with a 12h block and go from there. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

After [43] and then [44] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [45] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement--  Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing of Trinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )
This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making false promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: We currently have comments from three people who are very familiar with this user's past and present behavior, and who are in favor of formally recording the topic ban he informally agreed to in an attempt to avoid a block or community ban. Besides those having commented here so far, multiple editors previously, including Mann jess, Ncmvocalist, Hans Adler, Mackan79, ResidentAnthropologist, Torchiest, Beyond My Ken, and many others have said things like this editor's last chance came and went some time ago, that a community ban should be enacted, that any additional violations should trigger a community ban or at least a topic ban from all controversial subjects, etc, etc. I'm not aware of even a single editor who has ever disputed or opposed such statements. Apart from the editor himself, is there anyone who thinks that formally recording the topic ban against participation in controversial subjects that was previously agreed to would be unwarranted or unfair?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus' behavior has improved for the most part since the topic ban and I was hoping we might even lift it in few months. This last AFD clearly indicates that Terra novus has not learned. Either Terra Novus' behavior needs to change quick or the way we treat his behavior needs to change. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you clarify that, please? I'm not sure if you're in favor of vacating the topic ban that he's not abiding by anyway, or in favor of recording it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been taking a wikibreak due to personal issues, but I've read over the discussion here, and have worked closely with this user in the past, so I'll briefly comment. From his first edit, Terra's contributions have been problematic, almost universally being reverted by a broad array of users in an even broader selection of topics. At this point, it seems like he spends half his time at ANI (or elsewhere) rehashing the same points about the same editing patterns, with no indication whatsoever of improvement. The first time this issue appeared, I devoted months to walking him through policy, helping him work constructively. When that failed, I let others take over, hoping they'd give him the direction he needed. When that failed, I supported giving him another chance if he could simply demonstrate he understood why his editing was problematic. When that failed, I supported a topic ban, which achieved consensus but was never enacted. After 1 or 2 more ANI cases after that, a topic ban was finally enacted, and since then we've seen Terra at ANI unacceptably often, even still.
It's still the case that all his edits need to be scoured over by others, and I don't see any end to that problem. That is simply unreasonable. Extending Terra's topic ban is unlikely to help, since he's seen problems in every topic area he's touched, and furthermore, he's repeatedly breached the terms of his current ban at every apparent opportunity. With that in mind, I regret having to recommend a block or community ban. This user's edits are not a net gain to this project, and I see no way to remedy that. I would happily change my stance if someone could provide any reason to believe that Terra will eventually be able to edit wikipedia (anywhere) without constant supervision. I am, however, dubious that anyone will.   — Jess· Δ 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It should also go without saying that I support the current proposal, which is to extend his formal topic ban to include other areas. I think this step is unnecessary, and unlikely to resolve the problem, but if other editors feel differently, then I support giving it a try.   — Jess· Δ 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Ohio Standard, Terra Novus has shown this pattern of being unable to edit with out disruption in certain topic areas. I dont think widening the scope will have the desried affect in the long run. If he had'nt written a Good article in the mean time I would be up for banning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talkcontribs) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So far I'm getting the idea that Religion, Politics and Psuedoscience are areas that the community feels I should avoid. I agree. I hope that my recent editing behavior has been largely constructive, but I understand that these topics in particular are just not good for me to edit. If the community feels that my presence in Wikipedia is no longer warranted I will abide by their decision. I have unfortunately had a tendency for contentious editing, and I appreciate the efforts that the community has made to get me on the right path. I edited in good faith, but obviously not with good tact.--  Novus  Orator  06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That ship sailed a long time ago. You agreed to avoid those areas, and all controversial areas entirely, and then utterly ignored your promise despite multiple requests to honor it. The only question at this juncture is whether to formally record a topic ban, or whether to proceed with an indef or site ba