Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Controversial moves[edit]

OP blocked one week, see below Nobody Ent 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Thomas280784, an apparent SPA, has made numerous controversial moves to non-English titles in violation of Wiki-policy WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. This user has been warned that such moves are controversial,[1] but, in a violation against Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI, has stormed ahead with another dozen moves just today:

I request that these articles be moved back to their original title names per WP:BRD, and that admin action be taken against Thomas280784 to prevent him making such controversial moves outside of the WP:RM procedure. Dolovis (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was usual policy that accents were included in article titles where they were proper names not in the English language. WP:UE applies when looking at something like Munich, a place with an English name which differs from its local name, but not when dealing with a person. See WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics ... In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters". Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it is most certainly not usual policy to use modified letters in an article's title. The policy of COMMONNAME stipulates that the article title should follow the name as used in reliable English-language sources. And in the above cases, those sources do not use modified letters. In any case, BRD does apply, so these article moves should be reverted before the RM discussion takes place. Dolovis (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What's a "modified letter"? Surely that's the one where a native accent has been stripped for the benefit of illiterate ASCII. Fortunately we have no technical reason to do this. Use the correct form, with the accent, and set up a modified redirect to cope with cases using restricted keyboards. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policy of Wikipedia:Article titles states that we are to use the Common Name as found in reliable English-language sources. These moves go against Wikipedia policy as there are no sources to support the name with modified letters. Dolovis (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and a reliable English-language source will correctly and competently report a European name with the necessary diacritics. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see (a) this isn't an ANI issue, (b) Thomas280784 is not an SPA, merely an editor with an interest in ice hockey and (c) DJSasso's response to Dolovis' warning is also worth reading. Number 57 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thomas280784 was warned that such moves are controversial, but forged ahead anyway, in violation of Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI, and ignoring the policy, protocol, and spirit of WP:RM; but regardless, these article moves should be reverted per BRD, and RM should be followed if Thomas280784 wishes to argue policy in support of his proposed moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. That does sound like an ANI issue. Admonish and topic ban for Dolovis? Wrong, and underhand about not disclosing their own past history when attacking another editor for doing it right. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dolovis! The only cotroversial thing is that you're still allowed creating such ridiculous stubs and not even mentioning that there are diacritics in these guys names... So save your energy and start moving the following ones: Teemu Selänne, Patrik Eliáš, Éric Desjardins, Ossi Väänänen...just to name a few! But there are still many left especially when you look at Category:Czech ice hockey players, Category:Slovak ice hockey players or Category:Finnish ice hockey players... Thanks to User:Sam Blacketer, User:Number 57 and User:Djsasso for supporting my moves! --Thomas  17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The moves to diacritics titles are not supported by any sources, which amounts to original research.Dolovis (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
That is just ridiculous, using non-english sources to back something up does not make something original research. You have a very poor grasp of policy. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

One last question: ANI and SPA seem to be abbreviations. What do they stand for? --Thomas  17:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A capitalised acronym is usually a shortcut like WP:ANI (You're here already) or WP:SPA (a single-purpose account), which is usually a WP:CIVIL(sic) way of implying that an editor you disagree with is a WP:SOCK, without any evidence to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not implying that anyone is a SOCK. A SPA refers to an account "whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose", a lable, which looking at the edit history for Thomas28078, appears to apply. Dolovis (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record... my main account is de:Benutzer:Thomas280784. --Thomas  17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Tempest. Teapot. Close before it degenerates further. Glrx (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Last time I heard, even hockey player names were supposed to have their title in English, but redirects with diacritics were ok (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The diacritic titles seem consistent with the Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen examples given at WP:UE. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
We follow policy here, not Wikipedia:FAITACCOMPLI. The policy is to revert controversial moves per WP:BRD, and then to open a discussion concerning the controversial move at WP:RM. Dolovis (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thomas28078, should've went the RM route. Such unilateral page moves, merely cause disruption. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it... Why are those moves called "controversial"? I'm not wrong by moving those pages... For example Jiří Sekáč... --Thomas  19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are. In any event WP:NOTBUREAU is still one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, so I don't see anything wrong with moving them without discussing them first. Dolovis can move them back and start a discussion if they'd like. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yawn. Does anyone here actually think these page moves damage the encyclopaedia? I actually think the new titles are more informative. Basalisk inspect damageberate 19:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Did somebody say "new"?--68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
These reason these moves are wrong is that Thomas was warned that such moves were controversial, and he was told that he should proceed through RM. He ignored such warnings and made the controversial moves anyway. That is not how we do things here. If someone will just revert these moves so Thomas can proceed to make his case in an RM discussion, then that would be one way to conclude this issue. Dolovis (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a diff to where the consensus was established the moves are controversial. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, just to sum this up... Moving the pages to the correct spelling was wrong because I didn't request to move them?!? That's disgusting... And as the talk goes on, there's only one person who thinks that my moves were "controversial"...And that's you. I don't need those discussions because I'm not wrong in any way! Please tell me, why you didn't move pages like Patrik Eliáš? Why? --Thomas  22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
That phrase -correct- is viewed by many on the pro-english/anti-diacritics side as being arrogant. I'd wish you'd strike it. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Edwardian England is alive and well somewhere. Maybe if you explain it loudly and often enough, these funny foreigners will realise that they're spelling their own names wrongly. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the hockey WikiProject consistently gets their collective panties in a knot whenever an Eastern European hockey player's article is moved from the lazy title that lacks the proper diacritics present in the player's name in their native tongue, which are viable article titles on the English Wikipedia because the use of diacritic marks. Their own guidelines are no longer valid on the matter. This is a perrenial issue and someone who always feels one way about diacritics will raise a stink when pages get moved to the opposite version. I don't think there has been any sort of concrete decision about what should be done because the hockey fans on Wikipedia appear to be in some sort of ceasefire over this content.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. WP:HOCKEY did come up with a resolution on this matter, listed under WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject Notice:
  • All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required).
  • All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics.
  • All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).
(Their emphasis, not mine). So it appears that on all articles on players themselves, the diacritics are to be in article titles. When the names are used on articles on the NHL and other North American leagues, the diacritics are not used on those pages, but are on others, and the diacritics are always used on other hockey league pages. So Thomas280784 is in the right on these moves.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
A recent discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Create_a_special_status_for_project-level_style_guidelines indicated project wide policies should be followed in preference to Project policies; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(proper_names)#Diacritics indicates the diacritics are appropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
And WP:HOCKEY agrees. Diacritics should be in article titles, which is contrary to Dolovis's preferences. They merely do not use the diacritic names (relying on piping or redirects) on pages on NHL teams.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus within the ice hockey project on the use of diacritics within the article's title. Following the MOS, diacritics are properly used within the article. Even if there was a consensus within the ice hockey project, that would not trump the Wikipedia policy of WP:AT which dictates to use the WP:COMMONNAME as established by English-language reliable sources. But this entire line of discussion just goes to illustrate the point that the moves made by Thomas are controversal, and so they should be reverted prior to an RM discussion, which is where all of you points concerning the proper title should be made - not here. Dolovis (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Opening an ANI thread and claiming the resultant discussion proves controversial is not a compelling argument. Repeatedly asserting your opinion is not a compelling argument. Not providing diffs to support your claim are not compelling arguments. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing diacritic marks does not English or common name make, either.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Dolovis had a hand in preventing the proper use of diacritics in this debate. Per the hockey project's own guidelines, the diacritic form of the titles should be in use for all those affected pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

When referring to WP:AT, Dolovis always omits this sentence: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. (my bold). And, oh, this thing about "ignoring the policy, protocol, and spirit of WP:RM", Dolovis would know all there is to know about that, not to mention WP:FAITACCOMPLI and gaming the system. Dolovis had (or has) a page move ban imposed on him for this. (I guess he hasn't mentioned that either.). Recently, he has returned to his old ways of gaming the system, for which he has been reported in a section below. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is getting to the point where Dolovis wastes so much of the wikis time that his diacritics move ban should be changed to a full out diacritics topic ban. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. What is the net worth of Dolovis's contributions? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
A topic ban discussion is appropriate. However, as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, discussion of an editor's "net worth" is not an appropriate topic of conversation here; it is personal attack by innuendo. Nobody Ent 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • support topic ban (or even a general block) for Dolovis on anything related to diacritics. This is a new one to me, but looking briefly back over history this is clearer a far bigger pattern of behaviour than just this one incident. Taking an inappropriate contrary position on their use is one thing, this clearly tendentious mover-warring is quite another and now as here, bringing another editor to ANI for acting correctly is quite unacceptable. Given their responses in this thread, and the time for which this has already gone on, they appear unlikely to change either their views on diacritics, or (more seriously) to accept that they're beating a dead horse with incessant vigour. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved here, but I have to agree with Andy - looking at the previous discussions (thank you DJSasso for pointing to WP:RESTRICT where the indef move ban is listed w/ links) and what is being done here, this has pushed past acceptable. In a way it's a shame, but an extension of the current ban to include disusing or acting on article titles that contain diacritics is supportable. The disruption involved and the bad faith exhibited by Dolovis in the OP and their contact with Thomas280784 speaks volumes that Dolovis needs to be kept - and I'd really prefer that it be "stay" but that degree of voluntary disengagement does not look even remotely likely - away from not only directed page move related to diacritics in the titles, but also initiating or participating in discussions of the same. - J Greb (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • All this drama, would've been avoided, if RMs would've been set up for the hockey bio articles. As I mentioned before at WP:HOCKEY, uni-lateral page moves on this topic, should be avoided. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    It would also have been avoided if Dolovis had not brought Thomas280784 here. Instead, ironically, Dolovis is now at risk of having sanctions against himself expanded. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See also[edit]

There is another report on a related issue here. As mentioned above Dovolis had a page move ban imposed on him for gaming the system this summer. Now he has started doing that again. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WölffReik and his "personal library" of articles.[edit]

Can someone have a look at WölffReik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his "personal library" of articles on kick boxing here, a number of which are copyies (without attribution) of deleted articles (such as User:Minowafan/Hero's 4, User:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club ,User:Minowafan/Local Kombat). Mtking (edits) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I opened a dozen or so of these pages, and all of them were copyvios of similarly named articles (for example, User:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club was a copyvio of SuperKombat: Fight Club), and thus I deleted all of them. I don't have time to check the rest, but since every article I've checked is a copyvio, I strongly suspect that the rest are; I'm just going to delete every subpage except for any individual pages that don't look like copies, due to (1) WP:IAR; (2) the copyvio status of everything I checked, and (3) the fact that blocked socks generally don't need subpages anyway. Anyone know a way to delete them without openening and deleting everything individually? I've already found that these pages are too old to be nuked. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if you know of a way to delete these rapidly, leave a note on my talk page; I'm going to be busy enough deleting them that I won't notice a reply without an orange banner at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed autoreviewer status, doesn't seem appropriate for someone with this many copyvio issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Good call. I'm done deleting; if my count is right, there were 433 subpages, and I deleted everything except the sandbox; it seems to be a directory for all of the other pages. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
maybe one more User:WölffReik/Sandbox looks to be a mix of K-1 World MAX 2011 −70kg Japan Tournament Final and K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final (as deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final). Mtking (edits) 07:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this user is that they utilize a wide variety of socks and ips to maintain this content. Immediately after this DRV and this following AfD I'd brought several of these sandboxes and the continuing gaming behavior to this forum (asking for an indef block), but because the editor was not actively violating policies and guidelines, nothing was done at that time. I'd like to think that at some point, an administrator should block this account, if for no other reason than we could see other user accounts exposed. This editor is a dedicated disruptor, but the disruption is done purely to build and promote this content area, even if against consensus. Does a Kickboxing/MMA wiki exist? It might be better to get the editor to utilize knowledge and willingness in such a space; instead of deletion, we could transwiki and the user might be able to contribute meaningfully there with little interference from WP. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
WölffReik's sandbox deleted; it's distinct from Minowafan's sandbox, which is purely a list of names, and thus no more of a copyvio than is a library card catalog. Yes, someone please block here; I've probably done enough on this project and expressed enough opinions in the deletion that I'm past the point of interacting with him/them purely in an administrative role. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely. I've also run a quick check on his last few IP addresses for any other accounts (found none).Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

IP readding material to Talk:Muhammad after warnings from two administrators[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. --Elonka 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This user was warned by me about adding contentious material to Talk:Muhammad. They were then warned again by Ohnoitsjamie and Dougweller that they would be blocked if they continued to re-add the material. They have added the material again and have even requested that they be blocked on their talk page.[2] Could an administrator please oblige? Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and Happy New Year from France. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad this has been properly taken care of; but I would suggest that you avoid the use of the term "blasphemous" in such notices, since the term is inherently going to constitute an WP:NPOV violation. --12.232.7.194 (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please make smart alec glib comments like this somewhere else. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please cite the policy or guideline which forbids "blasphemy." Edison (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
He was blocked for disrupting the talk page, if you follow things through a little more carefully. Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is criticism of a controversial person who died 1,300 years ago not tolerated on Wikipedia but blatant anti-Semitism like this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruraldave284 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

People post all kinds of stupid non-sense on their talk pages. It isn't presented as fact and reads like a rambling pseudo-historical non-sense rant. It isn't a big deal.--Adam in MO Talk 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is offensive, unnecessary, and violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. I have posted a message to the editor's Talk page asking them to remove it ([3]).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone else has shifted it. As history goes, it's about as valid as Erik von Daniken. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on valid sourcing and notability. "Blasphemy" does not figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh, you say that only because you delight in being blasphemous. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The block was for disrupting the talk page after separate warnings from two administrators, not for blasphemy. Edit summaries which read "mass murderer and pedo" are not a good sign. In addition the newly created account Ruraldave284 is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the blocked IP. Oh and sorry to ruin your fun by changing the title I chose for the thread. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Awwww, but is it true? If so, is it already in the article, and if not why?--JOJ Hutton 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ruraldave284 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) now also blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet by Jpgordon. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Baseball Bugs on this. The IP editor in question hasn't behaved well, but blasphemy cannot ever be a reason for removing content. It's pure non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the ip only got a bit disruptive when his/her opinions began to be removed from the talk page. And for blasphemy no doubt. even I would get a bit ticked off if someone used that as a reason for removing any of my edits, or trying to keep me from asserting my opinion. Wikipedia is not Censored. If any one doesn't like it, tough, get another hobby or go start your own censored wiki.--JOJ Hutton 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
That is incorrect because the first problematic edit summary read, "‎mahomet the humanitarian chopped naked ethiopian women for fun". Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it true?--JOJ Hutton 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The IP also asserted that I was a Muslim. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci is correct, the IP was obviously trolling. Though the header here at ANI probably shouldn't have included the word "blasphemous". Better would have just been "disruptive". Now that the IP is blocked though, perhaps we could all just swim away? --Elonka 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Correct, the IP was nothing but a troll and there's no point in defending him. He could have been civil and serious in suggesting that Criticism of Muhammad be incorporated into the Muhammad article, but he wasn't. He was intentionally and openly confrontational, and pushed for an anti-Islamic POV. He is no better than anyone supposedly trying to push for an Islamic POV. Complaints about "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Blasphemy is POV" are completely ignorant of that editor's behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't read my post, did you? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Regardless of the reason given for undoing his actions, his actions were not acceptable and started off pretty trollish. If the reason given was "this editor is being disruptive" from the get go, the ban would still be in place. Is anyone going to defend the IP or appeal his block? If not, complaining is unnecessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If you read my post, you ignored half of it. I said that blasphemy must never be a reason for removal of content AND that the IP editor's behaviour was unacceptable. You missed the second bit I think. Both parts are important to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I bolded my point on that. It changes nothing whatever reason was given. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Not really concerned about defending what the ip did, but more concerned with what they said, and why it was removed and reverted, even when the ip to tone down the language. Mathsci's first revert, came with no explanation at all. If Mathsci found the passage blasphemous, then he/she should have asked the ip to reword or clarify, rather than systematically removing a comment he/she found personally offensive, without even giving a reason why. I personally found nothing offensive in the passage at all, and in fact it peaked my curiosity to try and discover more potential atrocities. If true, killing 900 people is not really one of the highlights of someones life story. The allegation about sleeping with a 9 year old girl, concerns me much less. In a time period when the average lifespan was 29, getting a head start with the baby making, made loads of sense. Probably should give him a big pass on that one, if true.--JOJ Hutton 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Mathsci's motives here are transparent. He saw a disruptive editor and dealt with him. I would have dealt with it differently, but these things are a hard call. I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty, Mathsci is not acting out of bias, one way or the other, with regard to Islam. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Imagine the article on Mao Zedong, or perhaps Adolf Hitler, stated he was a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Would we get so block-happy about an IP getting similarly heated on the talk page about the inappropriateness of such a description in those articles? Probably not. I don't think the IPs edits were disruptive at all – the way I see it is 1) the IP made a comment on a talk page 2) an editor/some editors didn't like it, removed it, and told him he wasn't allowed to add it again (despite the fact it contained no personal attacks or BLP violations) 3) the IP, quite rightly, wouldn't take that lying down and re-added his comment (as I probably would if someone tried to remove a comment I made on a talk page on the basis that it was blasphemy) 4) repeat several times 5) more experienced editors call in the cavalry at ANI, crying foul 6) IP gets blocked simply because he didn't make it to ANI first. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Basalisk inspect damageberate 02:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.....You are correct sir. What have we got for him Monty?--JOJ Hutton 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Rather big difference, though. Mao and Adolf would never have said "if any one slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." Also, Mao and Adolf aren't the founders of a by-and-large peaceful and respectful religion that gave rights to women and religious minorities that Europe wouldn't give for another 1200 years. Your reductio ad Hitlerum is invalid. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Well congratulations Ian, I was wondering who would be the first to mischaracterise my argument as an ad hominem – not every statement that mentions Hitler is reductio ad Hitlerum. I'm not saying "Muhammad did the same things as Hitler, and everything Hitler did was wrong, so we should let people say Muhammad is wrong" (reductio ad Hitlerum), I'm simply saying that I think that objection to the IP's edits is based on wide international support for the subject he's criticising, rather than for any actual disruption they're causing. I'm not saying Muhammad is like Hitler. Basalisk inspect damageberate 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
To clarify further, I'm just curious as to whether we'd be so quick to discount the IP's edits as unacceptable if the opinion he is attempting to convey was less controversial (e.g. if he was criticising a subject much more widely-criticised, such as Hitler). There shouldn't be a discrepancy – if the IP had made similar criticisms at the Hitler talk page and wouldn't have been censored for it, then we shouldn't be censoring him here either. Does that make sense? Basalisk inspect damageberate 03:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And as brought up on the IP editor's talk page: If you are not comparing Muhammad to Hitler, then "Imagine the article on Mao Zedong, or perhaps Adolf Hitler," is a completely useless and unrelated non-sequitur. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
"by-and-large peaceful and respectful?" I know a number of Muslims who are indeed peaceful and respectful of the beliefs of others. Then there are the Taliban, al Queda, and theocracies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, who are not at all peaceful or respectful, and who commit evils in the name of the religion. Similar criticisms could be aimed at movements and theocracies based on other world religions which claim to be peaceful. Edison (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Citing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is like citing the KKK to counter the claim that Christianity is racially open. Most Iranians don't want war, it's mostly their president (who has to get the approval of a couple of councils of clerics to do anything but make empty threats), who has universally terrible approval ratings and only remains in office because he can get America to pay any attention to Iran. You also forgot Malaysia and Southeast Asia in general, where the majority of the world's Muslims live and don't cause any problems. %98 of the world's Muslims aren't even close to being terrorists (being a different sect and all), the Arab spring demonstrates that a similar number values equal rights and opposes theocratic oppression. I'd say that's safe to call "by-and-large peaceful." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Folks, what's relevant here is the actions of the IP, of those who reverted, and my block. I thought the IP's actions were deliberate provocation (judging by the content and the summaries), and that's why I blocked - not because of censorship or blasphemy (I follow no religion myself). What anyone thinks of Hitler, Muhammad, or anyone else is not relevant here and this is not the place to discuss them. (And, as usual, any other admin is welcome to act as they see fit without needing to ask me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block, and suggest archiving this discussion as the heat-to-light ratio is skewing. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block. And recommend that the content-related discussions in this thread be moved to a more appropriate venue, such as Talk:Criticism of Muhammad. --Elonka 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mayday, Mayday, Block-evading harasser[edit]

A person has been evading blocks and maki personal attacks agains me and harnessing me. Please see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, an my talk page and Makaton and it's talk page for the relevant ips. Admin EdJohnson tried something but it did 't work. I don't know what to do! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


Response: You're disputing a valid refute to your statement, Ramaksoud2000. You either delete anything that goes against what you're saying, or you don't answer it. You're painting a very one-sided picture here, and that's not the goal of Wikipedia. Don't appeal to an admin simply because someone has a differing point of view. 85.237.211.90 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang thrown by the IP. Blatant personal attacks. Looks like we'll have to block a range (85.237.192.0/19 or if we want to be less bold 85.237.211.0/24) here because this IP user obviously hops IPs. Obvious gaming the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Trying to revert all this, but I don't know if I can find it all. Calabe1992 04:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Message to ip: I don't think we can take your claims seriously after all your personal attacks against me. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying a slightly wider rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it worked... Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The CIDR notation used by EdJohnston means he has blocked all addresses from 85.237.211.0 to 85.237.211.127 for a week and those from 85.237.211.176 to 85.237.211.191 for a month. I cannot guarantee that this guy will not go into the uncovered spots, but all we would need to do is make a larger rangeblock.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor continuing to insert POV content[edit]

After being warned, user Pepeleyva continues to insert personal commentary and POV regarding author Jon Krakauer in various articles. Diffs here:

  • Jon Krakauer article: [4]; [5]; [6]
  • Mount Everest article: [7]
  • Anatoli Bourkeev article: [8]
  • Regarding POV violations, editor was warned: [9]; [10];
  • Regarding 3RR violations, editor was warned: [11]
  • I have communicated with the editor on his talk page: [12]; [13]
  • I have also communicated with the editor on my talk page: [14]

Based on the number of edits under his account, editor is relatively new, there seems to be a possibility of a language barrier (based on his writing), and he's certainly displaying a severe case of WP:IDHT as other editors have attempted to communicate with him as well. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

After other editors have expressed to this user that NPOV content is essential and POV content is a violation of policy (see here and here), User:Pepeleyva is now using an IP sock (User:201.130.205.234), inserting the same POV content here and here. He's now defiantly exhibiting WP:IDHT even though other editors have tried to work with him since this report was filed. And -- could someone take the time to explain to me why no one has touched this report since it was filed? Should I have not filed it or is there some other reason? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LesHB is right. After LesHB reverted and warned Pepeleyva, an IP editor tried to add the contentious material back into Jon Krakauer and Anatoli Boukreev. LesHB caught one and I caught the other. Either a major coincidence or possibly some socking. I've placed all three articles (including Mount Everest) on my watch list, and encourage other editors to to the same. Thanks LesHB. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullying, canvassing, forum-shopping, railroading?[edit]

We've got something of a situation brewing over at Talk:Association of Global Automakers. An editor hired by a company to write "their" Wikipedia article is (successfully) canvassing and forum-shopping for accomplices to come in and bully, railroad, and shout down all those who question the rectitude and balance of the article:

On 21 December, Association of Global Automakers was started by WWB Too (talk · contribs), who declares he was hired by that company (as he has been hired by others; here, here, here, and here, for example) to write "their" article. WWB Too discloses his ("potential", as he sees it) conflict of interest in each of the several arenas where he discusses the article including the article talk page and the automobiles project page.

On 22 December, Jenova20 (talk · contribs) added what look to me like warranted templates to the article with what looks to me like an appropriate edit summary, and initiated discussion on the talk page, under which WWB Too objected to the templates on grounds of having stated on the automobiles project page his intent to write the article and posting a link to draft versions in his userspace. There was fairly civil conversation, which I joined on 28 December. Biker Biker (talk · contribs) joined in the discussion; like Jenova20, he and I raise our eyebrows (and support the templates' inclusion) at what looked like an overtly promotional piece written by an editor hired to do so, with no content that could shed less than warmly glowing light on the subject organisation.

On 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Youreallycan (talk · contribs), who went to the article talk page, belligerently and incorrectly accused two of the wrong editors (myself [15] and Biker Biker [16][17]) of adding templates, twice disregarding the diff showing the actual origin of the templates.

Meanwhile, YouReallyCan seemed to take the position that reinstating templates unilaterally removed without consensus is the same as adding templates from scratch and appears to reject all disagreement (e.g., [18]) with that opinion. S/he repeatedly harassed me (by dint of repetition; the content itself wasn't of a harassing nature) on my talk page [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]—with odd demands that I cease removing "good faith discussions" from my own talk page and a strange threat to disregard my contributions to the discussion (which gives the appearance of a belief that s/he is an arbiter or otherwise privileged editor of some kind), and also badgered Biker Biker on his talk page in similar fashion [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. On the article talk page, YouReallyCan mischaracterised the COI template as a punitive device [32], issued orders that other editors are not to add templates [33] [34] [35], and declared there to be no support for the templates' retention despite the editor who originally placed them stating he is temporarily unavailable for extensive editing during the holidays [36] and other editors including myself pointing out that there's no timeline or deadline for the removal of the templates except perhaps one that might come not from Wikipedia policy but from the agency that bought the article in the first place: [37] [38] [39] [40] [[41]].

YouReallyCan stated [42] that "templates are of little value to the project", then—just hours after they'd been put up—unilaterally removed the templates and went to war seven times in less than two hours with editors who reinstated them [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. This edit war gave rise to a 3RR report with black marks for Biker Biker (and perhaps for YouReallyCan; I can't tell) and a sysop's temporary PP of the article [50].

Also on 29 December, WWB Too requested backup from Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), who declared his own unilateral intent to remove the templates if his demand is not met within 48 hours for their justification to his satisfaction, then gave a nod and a wink to WWB Too ([51], scroll down).

I started a tangential conversation on Jimbo's talk page aimed at learning if or how his 2009 opinion on bought-and-paid editing has changed; this conversation was joined by YouReallyCan, WWB Too, Tagishsimon, Ebikeguy, and others; as of this writing Jimbo has yet to weigh in. It appears from that discussion that WWB Too counts his or her userspace as "somewhere else" for the purpose of compliance with Jimbo's opinion that it is perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way. I'm not sure that's what Jimbo meant by "somewhere else"; I think he probably meant somewhere off Wikipedia, but I'm not Jimbo so I can't say for sure.

I also made substantial and reliably-supported content contributions to the article in an attempt to address some of the issues raised in the templates [52]; these appear to have upset paid article author WWB Too, who has done what gives the appearance of additional canvassing and shopping for backup on that matter [53].

I am not comfortable with what looks and feels to me like a rather successful attempt at distributive paid ownership of an article, nor with the tactics being used to take and hold onto that power. All editors named in this report have been notified of this present discussion and linked to it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw the notice on Jimbo's talk page. I don't about the other editors and incidents that User:Scheinwerfermann references, but I'm looking into User:WWB Too. So far it appears that he's completely corrupt and should not be editing the Wikipedia. This is pretty hair raising stuff and swift and drastic action may be called for here. Herostratus (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that at least 2 editors pushing to sustain the same COI-fostered edits does strike me as alarming, as a potential WP:TAGTEAM effort, especially when one editor is targetting the individual opponent user-talk pages and re-posting warnings (multiple times within 3 minutes!) to user-talk pages when those users have re-deleted warnings from their own talk-pages (specifically: the edit diff-5507 un-reverting an editor's trimmed talk-page to insist a posted warning remain on that user-talk page). Forcing users to keep warnings on their talk-pages, in at least a 2-person effort to maintain COI-fostered edits, strikes me as very alarming. I will delay further detailed comments, to avoid giving "advice" here for how to be a less-pushy WP:TAGTEAM member. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with the article, nor with the idea of someone being paid to write it. Especially since they (WWB Too) are now spending lots of effort to maintain the article in the shape and form that they (or their bosses) prefer to see. Better no article at all, in my opinion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of the diffs given as evidence of bullying and harassment etc. show absolutely nothing of the sort. The article talk page is the place for the discussions - the use of this board to gain what one does not have at an article is fraught with peril, indeed. The issue of templates is always controversial, and is best dealt with by seeking consensus at the article talk page - not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. For example, one diff allegedly showing Youreallycan "issuing orders" to remove templates states: Not a single user has responded to my request to explain the reason for the templates here. Youreallycan (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC). This doesn't sound like an order to me. Another diff of a so-called "order" states: The templates were not there - you added them - either explain your reasons for adding the individual templates below or stop adding them - they were there before is no excuse to add them again. Youreallycan (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC). Again, I'm at a loss to see how this can be construed as an "order". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Look at more diffs; other diffs do show extreme evidence of bullying and harassment, plus taken as a whole set of posted messages, all diffs considered together show a pattern of obsessive behavior, in the manner of someone re-posting variations of "You had better not do it again" multiple times to a user-talk page within one hour. The problem is not the content of each diff, separately, it is the pattern of so many similar, repeated user-talk warnings within a few hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ypu mean like [54]? Sorry - I canna think of that diff as being harassment of anyone at all. YMMV, I guess. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I personally don't care who writes an article or if they managed to get a few dollars for doing it. I think it's better to look at it and say to yourself - is it better than it was and if the answer is yes then great. The template bombing of this article appears to be more of a "reaction" to the declaration that the user got a few dollars for writing it, so it must be evil personified and needs exposing rather than there being specific content issues that can be clarified and resolved. Perhaps there is a degree of critical content that could be added, then, it's not finished, just quietly add it. The community is "no consensus" on paid editors and I have found WWB to be a decent writer to GA standard, that says close to policy - there is no reason to demonize him or his work for his good faith contributions. If the energy that had been put into this report had been put into clearly stating what the specific issues with the content are then any issues would have been resolved by now.Youreallycan (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not bothered by the conflict of interest, i'm bothered by writing on my talk page to assume good faith and remove the tags to allow the article to exist unedited though.
I'm bothered by the sneaky rephrasing of calling this group anything other than a lobby group.
I'm bothered by the obvious canvassing now.
I'm also bothered by the clear intent to break rules by WWB to get his own way and ignore the criticism given to him by the article, either by trying to charm his way out (my talk page) or by ignoring criticism (talk page of Mr Choppers).
Admitting a Conflict Of Interest is good, not acting on suggestions from well respected and knowledgeable editors like our Mr Choppers is another thing.
I support a cleanup or deletion, either way the article can't exist in current form and this Conflict of Interest clearly runs a lot deeper by the sheer audacity of WWB's actions.
I'm also the one who added the tags for anyone still wondering.
Thanks Jenova20 13:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you would respond to my questions on the talkpage then to please clearly explain the specific reasons and related content they refer to so I and anyone else that wants to can address your issues and work towards improving the article and removing the templates. I don't accept your claim that the article can't exist in its current form, there might be minor issues but not more than that a little editing will easily resolve - deletion - well you are welcome to nominate it but I don't see that deletion would be a possibility. - Youreallycan (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The complete absence of any mention of lawsuits brought by the Association of Global Automakers is one glaring example of why the tags are necessary. I don't know if the lawsuits are "dirt" or not, but they do show us that COI editors suffer from a kind of myopia. I suppose the reason might be to softpeddle their activities: mere advocacy, mere friendly persuasion, rather than the truth that the auto industry group is also willing to use courts to force others to do things, or not do things that they wish to do. COI editors typically whitewash conflict and controversy and make everything seem all warm and happy.

    Also, an adequate summary of the lawsuit news stories would include the positions of those who were sued by the Association of Global Automakers. So the page would not longer be only a platform for the views of the Association, but would also contain a fair summary of the views of their opponents. The template {{COI}} exists to warn readers that in its current state, such opposing views are missing.

    Clearly, the correct response to the maintenance tags would have been to spent time finding missing content from the article, rather than running around to talk pages and deleting maintenance tags. Instead of repeatedly challenging others to explain the tags, go do a search at Google News and expand the article appropriately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Paid editing is a contentious issue, and in my view, in an ideal situation, it would not happen. But there is no consensus against it, and in practice it would be impossible to police. And the author has been open about it, which is a good thing. On the whole, I think decisions about articles like this should be based entirely on the article content itself. Had the exact same, word-for-word, article been written by someone else, would there be the same controversy? I suspect not. So I'm with Youreallycan here, and I think we should work to make this article better rather than just argue about who created it and their motivation. If anyone wants to add tags to any parts of the content, that's fine, but they should be prepared to explain what precisely is wrong with that content on the Talk page so that it can be addressed - and if they can't or won't do that when challenged, I think it is fair to remove the tags -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment See 1 January 2011 interview with WWB/William Beutler on C-SPAN Q&A, discussing his work on Wikipedia. I watched it live, and the transcript and video will be available later. It's being replayed live now. 99.50.186.111 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the COI editor in question[edit]

It is very ironic that Scheinwerfermann complains about anyone's "bullying" on this topic, as this is a very apt description of his behavior throughout this whole episode. I would invite any interested editor to read through our correspondence on the Global Automakers discussion page and conclude anything but that he is going out of his way to make me feel unwelcome on Wikipedia (even on Talk pages), not to mention stonewalling anyone who would ask about his concerns with the original article. Meanwhile, he's deleted even friendly correspondence between the two of us on his Talk page, for reasons that are a mystery to me, and deleted my inquiries as to such, which is more mystifying still.

Among other issues, he seems to willfully misunderstand the concept of canvassing, or forum-shopping. The guideline, to which he linked in pressing his case, outlines appropriate and inappropriate requests for assistance, and I can't imagine I've wound up on the wrong side of it. What's considered appropriate: "Limited posting" (I pinged two uninvolved editors); "Neutral" (in each message I said it was OK if they declined to get involved); "Nonpartisan" (admittedly these are editors with whom I had previously interacted, and whose wisdom I respected); "Open" (at least no one has accused me of hiding my affiliation).

Meanwhile, on this page and relevant others, Scheinwerfermann has referred to the Global Automakers article as "'their' article" but whom he is quoting is anyone's guess. It appears as if he's quoting me, but I don't think I've said that, and if it's my phrasing, it would be incorrect—I surely don't claim ownership of the article, nor would I. That's different from saying that I agree with some of his recent changes to the article, but I will bring that up over there, in the next few days.

For anyone who is curious about the chronology of this disagreement before it expanded beyond the Global Automakers Talk page, please see the explanatory note I left here. I think it helps to put Scheinwerfermann's innuendo-laden description of recent events in proper perspective.

Anyway, I'm not sure what is Scheinwerfermann's point in bringing this up here. He doesn't seem to like that I was engaged by Global Automakers to create an article about them, but their notability doesn't seem to be in question, and the original article was not intended to be a puff piece, so pretty much everything about this baffles me. I am well aware that paid editing is controversial and for that reason I have made every effort to disclose my potential COI and to work within all applicable guidelines and policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR—the same guidelines and policies that Scheinwerfermann seems to think don't apply to him.

And for what it's worth—although it may not be much—my agreement with Global Automakers related to the article's placement, not to final content. At this point, for me, it's all about the fact that I think I created a neutral and worthwhile article, and that my work has been badly misrepresented. I'm now defending it because what's transpired is a detriment not necessarily to the goals of my client, but to those of Wikipedia. Best, WWB Too (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I have edited this report to clarify my meaning in objecting to YouReallyCan's "harassing" me on my talk page. It was his or her deliberately repetitive badgering that felt like harassment; the content of his or her repetitive posts was mostly neutral. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for clarifying, although I think you are being too kind (in saying, "mostly neutral"), but I appreciate your turn towards leniency, since we need to find some ways to all work together. Perhaps "trout-slapping" :) would be an adequate sanction in this case, where COI editors want to edit-war, and threaten users to keep POV-tags out of a lobbyist's article. Meanwhile, let me re-iterate the problems in user behavior, to let people know these types of actions cause concern:
  • New Year's Eve oblivion: If someone replies to a question that they need more time due to a multi-national holiday (replied diff-444), then a proper reply would be to thank them for their reason and accept a 3-day extension on the full reply, but not take the advantage, in their absence, and delete their 4 article-tags (diff-669) while knowing they are away.
  • New Year's Eve edit-orders: It is not proper to restore deleted bark orders 3x times on a user-talk page ([55]) to demand of them, "state your reasons and the specific content".
  • New Year's Eve non-consensus tag deletion: It is best to wait for consensus, after New Year's Eve, before deleting WP:NPOV tags or {{Puffery}} tags from an article (diff-669) when those tags are being discussed on the talk-page (diff-797). Posting an ultimatum requesting reasons for the bias-tag templates, at 13:49 (diff-084), and then seeing only 1 partial reply in 7 hours does not permit deletion of POV-tags on New Year's Eve without a wider consensus.
I will stop at those 3 issues, as enough of a reminder to allow a few more days for other editors to respond to talk-page questions. Again, I appreciate that others wish to approach these events with a lenient attitude, so that all editors can find ways to work together on any potential bias issues being discussed at "Talk:Association of Global Automakers". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:Brikane / IP 66.130.71.165[edit]

There has been a swathe of edits on philological / ethnological / historical articles by User:Brikane and his IP, trying to push his own personal point of view concerning the linguistic / ethnic background of various ancient peoples, which unfortunately is completely unsupported by academic research and seems to be mostly home-grown. While such contributions come up from time to time, Brikane has taken this to a level of persistence I have hardly seen before, and likes to spice it by personal slurs against other editors, first and foremost against veteran User:Nortmannus, against whom he seems to have taken a particular dislike (he further insulted him on the French WP). He has been amply warned, both on his IP and his userpage, but has neither desisted (instead opting for frequent reverts) nor provided sources for his claims, nor has he used the talk page for constructive debate. Myself and other users have been spending a considerable amount of time undoing his contributions, but I cannot say that I want to make this my hobby. It's pretty tedious. Trigaranus (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Brikane's edits, IP edits
Now blocked for edit warring, personal attacks and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership[edit]

Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444, with Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, TenPoundHammer blanks articles with a #redirect instead of proceeding through the AFD process. His short-cutting though the proper Wikipedia process is a judgmental process which does not permit the established methodology to function, and then he gets upset when he is reverted after not leaving any comments in the edit after him and Eric444 have done what they have decided to do. If they are self-appointed administrators, then they have to conform to the established procedures for what they wish to do. In addition, I was not notified of this clandestine discussion by him as shown in the above heading. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I also must bring to the Administrators attention the Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski on this page, as TenPoundHammer has in the past done this on several occasions to articles I have edited, and presumably to thousands of other articles which has has effectively deleted by the misuse of the #redirect command, which goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
"....I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. ...." There is no factual truth to these statements. I request he supply the logs of his false accusation. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
AFD is not required when merges or redirects are involved. --MuZemike 01:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer does not merge articles with #redirects. He abuses the #redirect function to circumvent the RFD process Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I am still waiting to see my comments on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). As I never made any comments on that article, I'm curious to see what TenPoundHammer is falsely accusing me of writing Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Bwmoll3, there are some clear guidelines for when a song is notable - I believe you've already been directed to WP:NSONGS. If it doesn't meet the guideline, and isn't notable separately under WP:GNG, then redirecting it to the article on the album (or the artist) is the correct course, and does NOT require an Afd. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood Elen, however, if a #redirect is used, does that also not imply that the information in the song's article be merged into the album's article as part of the #redirect process? Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
There are two choices: either a redirect like the ones of which you're complaining, or a deletion debate that will result in the same redirect. Why force the bureaucratic AFD? Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Because the RFD is the proper procedure for deletions. A #redirect is used when merging articles, or when a title of one article is another name for another article. Using #redirect in lieu of a proper RFD is a misuse of command, and does not allow a full and proper RFD which users can comment and a consensus reached. Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, that's not how things work. RFD is for the deletion of redirects; AFD is for the deletion of articles. There is no need whatsoever to discuss before redirecting a non-notable article; it is called being bold, and no content is deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


" 'Bwmoll3 has vicious WP:OWN issues. Attempts to redirect non-notable song stubs he has created have been undone bluntly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song) for more reference. All of those articles have been redirected at least twice each by me and Eric444 Bwmoll3 playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card here when an uninvolved editor pointed out that the songs didn't meet WP:NSONGS. I've gone around the block before with this editor on Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song), which led to a RFC that unanimously endorsed the decision to maintain that song as only a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC) "

I find this entire statement very rude, childish, immature, as well as the statement being absolutely false and a blatant attempt to besmirched my reputation by presenting false statements as facts. This editor should apologize publicly to immediately and also be sanctioned severely for this false, slanderous accusation against me. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You had better lose the quasi-legalese terminology, or you risk being booted from wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Have we not spent enough time on this issue now? There's no need to have an AfD or RfD before redirecting an article (although there now is one, the likely result of which will be, er, redirect). TPH has been doing the right thing in redirecting these unreferenced permastubs. Bwmoll3 - this is not the massively important thing you think it is. Read the guidelines, get a grip, and put your undoubted enthusiasm for content creation to better use. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
With respect, I didn't start this. This incident was started by TenPoundHammer with his false and inflammatory comments on this page. I'm simply making my comments with regards to his actions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Another view would be that you created an issue by not adhering to policy/guideline, then complaining at people when they did, then refusing to pay attention when people tried to enlighten you of what the policies and guidelines are. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────


Ringing an admin on this.--Ankit Maity Talkcontribs 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


So...I have a problem[edit]

Over at AFC, there is a user who I highly suspect is a paid editor. Not only is their username Submissionexpert, but they have cited this website in their page submissions. I expect that they are most likely a paid editor, and even if they are not, the username is quite misleading, and I was wondering if any administrator would be willing to place some input on if they should be blocked or warned first. Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no policy dealing with paid editors. There is a bried mention here in the Conflict of Interest guidelines that recommends certain behavior, but right now there is nothing expressly forbidding paid editing. If the user is being disruptive, spamming advertisements/links, or writing in a very POV manner though then that is a problem. Is anything like that going on?AerobicFox (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
All true, but the first contribution I looked at was WT:Articles for creation/Cable Lugs where there are three "references" to a supplier of the product in the article, and a spam external link, and a helpful "Competitive Advantages" stub section. Let's spend a week discussing whether the editor is likely to be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like everything they've tried to create so far has been blatantly promotional. All bar one have been attempts via AFC, and they have all been rejected, and the one created directly was deleted as a copyvio. I'll keep an eye on their edits and if they repeatedly create promotional material we can act on that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need admin to revert broken change to an infobox[edit]

Resolved: Prodego has reverted, and articles are good. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A recent edit at {{Infobox scientist}} has broken the template, and the admin has gone offline. Please see Template talk:Infobox scientist#Trouble displaying non-image fields. I believe that as the server's caches are refreshed, each article with this template will hide many of the fields currently shown. Examples where this has happened include Alain Connes and Bill Joy and Donald Knuth. All that's required is a quick revert—the fix can be sorted out later. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Change dabs to real pages[edit]

NO ACTION
explanation provided, no action needed --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following pages should be real article pages, not dabs: monofluoride, trifluoride, tetrafluoride, pentafluoride.

See discussion here: [56]

Please make change (I think this is an admin-y power.)

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need admin help. A disambig page is just a page you can edit to make it an article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It is coded different somehow, no? TCO (Reviews needed) 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope, just remove the {{dab}} or {{disambiguation}} at the bottom and have at it. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of interaction ban[edit]

Please see here and then: [57]. Chesdovi (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC) [posted here from Administrators' noticeboard. 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)]

I don't see how this is an iban violation – it's not a revert. WP:IBAN states that editors under an interaction ban are not restricted from editing the same articles as each other, they're just not permitted to interact in any way. A revert would be an interaction, but this is not a revert. I think it's best that you stop trying to catch this guy out. Basalisk inspect damageberate 08:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, would you please explain this, with regards to this ban, which states you are banned from "adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed"? You came perilously close to a WP:BOOMERANG-related head injury last time. Basalisk inspect damageberate 09:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
For some reason I was under the impression that I was unable to edit a page if the last edit was made by that other editor. With that overly cautious mindset now relaxed, I feel rather liberated. I am just sorry I was not fully aware of what the ban actually entailed to have to trouble anyone here. Regarding the adding of Category:Burials at Har HaMenuchot to the saintly Hidah of blessed memory, I believe that clause of the ban is in sink with the topic ban which only prevents me from editing on the conflict itself, meaning that only adding cats which stipulate a person as being Palestinian or Israeli would be off limits. Have a great and prosperous new year. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Wasirg[edit]

I'm writing to report Wasirg (talk · contribs), who sole edits thus far have been to add his company to Wikipedia. Most of his pages have been speedy deleted, only for him to re-add them later on. Most of his pages have been listed at AfD and I've been monitoring his edits because I knew that there was a high chance of him potentially re-adding the pages or adding other pages that were promotional in nature. I noticed that today he has removed the AfD notices from articles that he's created and he's also been deprodding every article that he created. I know that he's able to do this since it's not a speedy, but I wanted to state that he's been doing everything he can in order to keep his pages on Wikipedia, to the point where he's been warned over his previous actions.

I want him to be blocked because he's been warned over disruptive editing and he's clearly not stopping. (See User talk:Wasirg and [58].)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Now blocked for continued removal of AfD banners after warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record, Tokyogirl, in the future, requests like this can more easily be made at WP:AIV. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know - looks like a spammer, not a vandal. Hopefully he won't resume the spamming after the two days are up. Doc talk 07:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think he's vandalizing as much as he's just trying to spam for his company, much like Doc said. He's disruptive (in my opinion), but he hasn't really edited any other articles in a way that would be seen as vandalizing. He's added his film company to a number of pages but other than that, not really anything that could be considered vandalizing. Thank you for blocking him, BTW. Hopefully the block will kind of give him a firm shake and make him realize that he's going about all of this the wrong way. I want to consider good faith, but when you've repeatedly tried to remove AfD notices and readd pages after they've been speedied...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
1st sentence: "Akram is the son of noted scholar Md Zainul Haque and Noorjahan Khatoon."[59] Not only is there no "note" (meaning an actual citation) for the "noted" part; there are two people listed under the one scholar credit. Maybe it was a typo. A cut and dried case of non-notable SPAM. Doc talk 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Without reading any more besides the last two comments, another option for these sorts of circumstances could be the conflict of interest noticeboard (or WP:COIN). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I encourage Tokyogirl79 to open up a case at WP:COIN. They are best equipped to handle this. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, as none of the stuff he's created is in any way notable and it is all pretty much certain to be deleted via PROD or Afd within the next week or so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. COIN is for subtle COI issues. AIV will tackle spammers, or it can be reported here - this is an incident requiring administrator involvement - edit warring to remove AfD templates is blockable, spam is blockable, using Wikipedia for advertising is blockable. Someone needs to start a conversation with him, but I'm not convinced he reads his talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What does one do when[edit]

Resolved

A new user keeps adding huge images to an article which has about twenty lines in it? See Matías Di Gregorio Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. I'll keep an eye on it. On a different note, you are a bit too liberal with the "vandalism"-button. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, hit the wrong one, was going for rollback. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is a matter for AN/I if a user is being disruptive and edit warring which this user clearly seems to be doing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all. I only posted here as I was unsure were else I should ) The guy is new and obviously a fan, I figured if a few users let him know what he ought not do then he would perhaps listen. I think it has worked. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it looks like the user in question reverted you 3 times, that's the line for edit warring. A user behaving like that is certainly an issue for AN/I, and I have no idea why Seb is claiming otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Because that would be an issue for WP:AN/EW, I believe? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount[edit]

I'm currently engaged in a dispute with User:Volunteer Marek and suggested to ask for a WP:3O to solve the ongoing discussion[60]. 5 minutes after I made the suggestion to ask for a third opinion User:MyMoloboaccount appeared for the first time and made a short comment[61]. As the dispute remained a discussion between Volunteer Marek and me, I continued and started a 3O request. Molobo immediately followed me up [62] and pointed out that there are more than just two editors engaged in the dispute (the third one is him), thus the 3O request was declined. MyMoloboaccount, who has a long tradition of coordinated editing with Volunteer Marek (formerly User:Radeksz), obviously joint the discussion on purpose, immediately after a 3O request was mentioned, to disrupt the request and a fast adjustment. MyMoloboaccount's support of Marek's version also circumvented WP:3RR, their cooperative editing ensured the implementation of "their" version. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I added my view way earlier than any request by Herkus for 30, also I commented and edited on that issue already on 3rd December 2011 so I am certainly not foreign to the topic discussed[63].obviously joint the discussion on purpose, immediately after a 3O request was mentioned, to disrupt the request A very striking show of bad faith, especially since I edited the article and the issue months before. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


As the dispute remained a discussion between Volunteer Marek and me This is incorrect. These two edits show that dispute was already in place before in December

So I was engaged in this already and commented as soon as I could, when it came to the main discussion page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


(ec)

  • User:MyMoloboaccount appeared for the first time - not true. Even a cursory look at the talk page shows that MMA was quite active on the article's talk page before.
  • MyMoloboaccount, who has along tradition of coordinated editing with Volunteer Marek - false, unsubstantiated accusation. The link provided by HM shows nothing of the kind. This is a kind of baseless attack that should invite a WP:BOOMERANG.
  • to disrupt the request - there was nothing disruptive here. It looks like the rationale was agreed with by a person at 3O: [66].
  • MMA noted his disagreement with HM, before [67] (15:55) HM filed the 3O request (16:05).
  • MyMoloboaccount's support of Marek's version also circumvented WP:3RR - bullshit, pretty much outright lying. There was no 3RR here. At best, even if you count our reverts as that of one person, that'd be two reverts on Jan 2. One by me. One by MMA - noting his disagreement with HM, per WP:BOLD. If HM honestly thinks this was a 3RR violation, then take it to 3RR board. Otherwise, stop making stuff up.
  • their cooperative editing ensured the implementation of "their" version - there was no "cooperative editing" here. Evidence? It's an article that both of us have edited before. We happen to agree on an issue. HM doesn't like this. So he's making groundless accusations.
This is exactly the kind of bad-faithed request which blatantly misrepresents a situation that WP:BOOMERANG was written for.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
MMA was not involved in the current dispute before I suggested a 3O request, he appeared 5 minutes after and "torpedoed" the request within minutes.
MMA and VM are not trying to resolve the dispute but to find a way to push their version
To push opponents into 3RR was a proven method of the WP:EEML ("circumvent" is an imprecise term for that, sorry)
I don't think VM is seriously denying his and MMA's membership in the EEML, the underlying battleground mentality seems to reappear here.
It's hard to assume good faith facing such a way to deal with "opponents". HerkusMonte (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


MMA and VM are not trying to resolve the dispute but to find a way to push their version - again, plainly false. Need I point out that *I* am the one who had to initiate talk page discussion on this topic [68], after you started going through and reverting my edits across several articles without so much as an explanation (except perhaps the insulting "POVpushing"[69])? It really takes some gall for someone who doesn't even bother to discuss issues on talk unless forced to do so to accuse others of not wanting to "resolve the dispute".
I don't think VM is seriously denying ... blah blah blah. Crying "witch", poisoning the well, and trying to smear editors one has a content disagreement with is a time honored tactic of bad faithed pov pushers everywhere. The underlying battleground mentality is the one that is still trying to win some battle from three or four years ago Herkus.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MMA was not involved in the current dispute before Again incorrect Herkus.

  • [70]Revision as of 16:31, 3 December 2011 MyMoloboaccount (minor, Poles were missing in the description]-- So I already pointed out this issue on 3rd December 2011, as to the rest that's a whole lot of baseless bad faith attacks.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A single edit a month ago is not part of the current discussion. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the same issue, same topic, same edit discussed. It concerns the same subject and the same debate. So sorry but it completely discredits your bad faith accusations that I "suddenly" came to the discussion. I was interested in this issue for a long time--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Personal attacks by Darkness Shines after warning at ANI[edit]

Resolved

Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Darkness Shines are escalating even more after he was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Personal attacks from IP editor for the same. I reported him for his edit war on multiple pages which got protected as a result and also told an administrator about the report, who was previously called in for intervention on one of the articles and was keeping a check on the content dispute. Now this personal attack he very recently made on me at another user's talk page is out right blatant [71]. How much more for enough? (Note that this report is strictly for personal attacks lest all the disputed content start spilling here). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

TG, go have a nice cup of tea, I believe the stress is getting to you. Cheerio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The next person who makes a personal attack, who goads another editor, who hounds another editor's contributions, or generally acts distuptively in this dispute will be blocked. I really mean it. I'm getting sick of people acting like 12 year olds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Having seen the efforts made by Magog the Ogre on this long-running dispute about topics involving Pakistan and India, I suggest that other admins may want to support his efforts. With some frustration I closed a 3RR case recently involving some of these editors. Because so many people were behaving badly and not waiting for consensus, no blocks seemed logical at that time. In the future, persistent warring and bad behavior across a range of articles is certainly worth taking admin action on, and I hope that Magog will advise on what further measures he thinks advisable. Already one of the editors involved, User:JCAla, has requested that Magog disqualify himself from further admin action regarding him. In my view JCAla should get extra credit for chutzpah. A set of community topic bans for all the editors involved in the recent 3RR report is one of the options to consider for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a proposal for atleast one article which is the main point of contention: Talk:Taliban#Consensus by community to enforce 1RR on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:ChristianHistory against me, User:R-41[edit]

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.
ChristianHistory blocked indefinitely by MastCell. See sections below about a consensus on a topic ban that would have to be taken into consideration if an unblock is requested. NW (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ChristianHistory has engaged in slanderous personal attacks against me, including accusing me of being racist without evidence, launched an ad hominem attack against me that called me a "lover of lies", and has insinuated that I am part of a "conspiracy" of anti-fascists intending to discredit fascism. See the "January 2012" section of the talk page for this: [72]. User:Rivertorch told ChristianHistory that he/she was engaged in personal attacks against me, before I was alerted by Rivertorch about ChristianHistory's personal attacks. Now ChristianHistory will respond that I have been slanderous to him, saying that I am accusing him of being anti-Semitic and a neo-Nazi. This is based on a discussion on the Talk:Fascism#Secondary_sources article where ChristianHistory accused the article of being biased in favour of allegedly "unreliable" Jewish, American, and British scholars, and stated that there was a Jewish and anti-fascist conspiracy to discredit fascism, I assumed that he may have been a neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic fascist attempting to force a change in the article involving removal of Jewish, or allegedly "anti-fascist" sources. Many users on the Fascism talk page held a similar view on ChristianHistory and condemned her/his propositions as being prejudiced, to which ChristianHistory refused to partake in cooperative discussion and responded in bellicose aggressive manner to them. I entered the discussion by stating that ChristianHistory was not being cooperative to other users, was promoting the removal of Jewish, British, and American scholars' information based on a prejudiced and xenophobic view of them as being automatically "unreliable" sources based on their culture. I stated that further discussion with ChristianHistory was pointless and that the section should be considered as a soapbox, as ChristianHistory refused to listen to the criticisms of other users and was determined to force the issue on the article. ChristianHistory accusing me of being racist with no evidence, being a "lover of lies", and being part of a conspiracy is very slanderous, and he/she was warned previously by Rivertorch not to proceed in this manner, I suggest that disciplinary action be taken by Wikipedia administrators on ChristianHistory for her/his blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy of opposition to personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time for a long winded argument. R-41 has already taken up much of my day. Any honest person can see R-41 doesn't care to follow the NPA guidelines he pretends to uphold. According to him, anyone who challenges unsourced, unfounded, and contradictory claims is an "anti-Semitic neo-Nazi". --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
ChristianHistory, given that you started the relevant talk page section with an implication that someone being Jewish was sufficient grounds to discount their material as "propaganda and nonsense" [73], I'd say that suggestions that you are an antisemite are entirely reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't hold Jews to be a "race", so I don't know how I can be "anti-Semitic". Besides Arabs, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. are Semites, so what does Semitism have to do with anything? --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you don't know what anti-Semitism is. We have an article about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(edit conflict)To Andy, and if not that, the bit "there is way too much reliance on secondary sources" is pretty much totally ignorant of the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR. To ChristianHistory, dismissing the difference in culture as "not a race" is not a defence against a charge of antisemitism. There's cultural antisemitism, religious antisemitism, political antisemitism... Racial antisemitism is only one type. Indeed, cultural antisemitism denies that Jews have a race, and accuse their religion and culture of being problems. Many of these individuals try to disprove any genetic distinction between Jews and Gentiles, (which is a recurring problem at Talk:Khazars) to try to argue they should adhere to Gentile culture. In your defense, though, you also unreasonably dismiss American and British sources here on the English language Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So basically if Jews are a race, then I'm a racist. And if Jews aren't a race, I'm still a racist. That's so convenient, isn't it? The whole "anti-Semitic neo-Nazi" label is just a bunch of crap used to silence discussion and weed out those who dare to oppose the majority of editors on clearly slanted propaganda pieces that is the article on Fascism. See my talk page for responses to the other accusations. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No, acknowledging genetic differences between Jews and Gentiles doesn't make one a racist, and acknowledging that Jews are part of the same species as Gentiles doesn't make make one a racist, both statements are true. It's when one goes to extremes with either position (saying that Jews are seperate from humanity, or saying that Jews shouldn't be different than anyone else) that it becomes a problem. Implying that Jewish sources are invalid just because they're Jewish leans towards the "saying Jews shouldn't be different" position. Also, you have not responded to the point that your call to drop "unreliable" American, British, and Jewish sources and instead use sources by first hand fascist propaganda goes completely against WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that users are addressing the issue of claims of anti-Semitism here involving her/his extremely controversial proposal on the Talk:Fascism article to discount sources written by Jewish, British, and American scholars. But please, let's get back to the point of ChristianHistory's personal attacks, he/she has called me a racist with no evidence, launched an ad hominem attack against me that I am a "lover of lies", and the insinuation that I am part of an anti-fascist "conspiracy".--R-41 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that stuff's unacceptable too. Actually, given the nature of Fascism, I'd venture to say that being pro-fascist would be the aberrant position, and being "anti-fascist" would be neutral. That, the call to replace reliable sourcess (because they don't support Hitler and Mussolini) with original research based on fascist sources, and the personal attacks all add up to a problematic editor. I'm inclined to suggest a topic and interaction ban, thought I don't have the wording for it yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I lost my response again because apparently R-41 doesn't know how to proof-read anything he/she/it writes and has to keep editing his/her/its responses over and over again. And point proven with Ian's last response -- this has nothing to do with attacks, and everything to do with politics and POV. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there are two issues: 1) The antisemitic comments, which include both the proposal that sources written by Jewish authors cannot be used as secondary sources for the Fascism article, as well as other veiled comments ("I think what we have is more of a confirmatory and Ingroup bias on the part of certain people. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you'll figure out who eventually."), and 2) the personal attack made against R-41 here immediately after being warned not to do so. Singularity42 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
And now Singularity decides to join in the lying too. And yes, I say lying since you were on my talk page and have read it, so you know better. --ChristianHistory (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I identified the two issues that have been raised in this thread. In any event, I specifically linked to the diffs in question. Where exactly have I "lied"? Singularity42 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)No, ChristianHistory, you calling him a racist for having a problem with Nazis is a serious problem. R-41 called for the exclusion of fascist propaganda, which is in line with WP:NPOV (and indirectly with WP:NOR). You have been calling for the exclusion of British, American, and Jewish sources because of their heritage. That's racist. If R-41 had said "no German or Italian sources" that would be a problem, but he didn't say that. If you had said "no Communist sources," that wouldn't be racist. But you said "British, American, and Jewish" sources, which excludes them based on their heritage, not their politics.
Also, I'd like to propose a topic ban: It seems that it would be best if ChristianHistorian stay away from articles pert