Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781

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

Noticeboard archives


Backlog at SPI: Will somebody please block this latest User:Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet?[edit]

Sock blocked by NuclearWarfare. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (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.

Because of the backlog at SPI (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000), and because this is clearly a WP:DUCK situation not requiring a check user, will an admin please block User:Mirafori as one of the many sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000 editing NYU Poly articles (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive). Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare! 72Dino (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2013 (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.

IP vandalism of MMA articles[edit]

Resolved: blocked for 1 month. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was warned and then blocked for vandalism and abuse of editing privileges on 24 November 2012. Since then, the IP editor has returned to vandalism of MMA articles on several occasions. On 9 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Brandon Vera and was reverted. On 11 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Gabriel Gonzaga and was reverted. On 17 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Pat Barry (fighter) and was reverted. Today, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Alexander Volkov (fighter). I noticed after another IP blanked the section, an action I thought was vandalism and reverted but then noticed that the record was ridiculous (fights in 2028, for example). The IP has not had a talk page message since the block, so an AIV post would be pointless but my just posting a vandalism warning seems an under-reaction. I have not seen any edit that was constructive, though I haven't checked every edit. Would an admin like to take some action, please? I'll post the ANI notice to the IP after saving this edit. EdChem (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted notification at the IP editor's talk page. EdChem (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is stale now, but I would like to understand why this request wasn't even worth a response... EdChem (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking action, Materialscientist, and that I wasn't reporting for no reason. EdChem (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Aryan2012 and expiration of protection on Omar Bakri Muhammad[edit]

It appears the above user has made a return to Wikipedia. The user in question used a series of accounts to wage a campaign of sanitization of referenced material on Omar Bakri Muhammad. This led to the article being protected for a period which expired on 3 Jan 2013. It appears the person in question has returned now that protection has expired. He/she appears to have also returned to their other hobby-horse of subjects related to Cyprus. I have reverted their edits to National Federation of Cypriots as some of these just render the meaning of the article nonsense (as well as changing the organization's name). I also have my doubts on Nikos Sampson, its the first time a reference has been supplied here (even if it is to a book on Amazon without page numbers), however I have left the edits for now to see if someone with access might be able to verify the reference. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, User:Britishpatriot2014 does quack very loudly, but I'm certainly not going to disagree with this edit of theirs, because whether a BLP subject's daughter has a job as an exotic dancer is utterly irrelevant and undue. I'd suggest raising an SPI in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Union Flag move to Union Jack[edit]

This isn't the right forum for discussing a six month old page move. Please discuss at Talk:Union Jack NE Ent 10:47, 7 January 2013 (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.

In August 2012, there was a request for moving a page from Union Flag to Union Jack without, from what I can see, any compelling arguement to do so. This is a controversial move that should not have happened, and there have been a few other users to comment that there wasn't a concensus reached to move this page. I'm not sure how the Admin came to this controversial decision. I'm appealing for this decision to be reversed as it was made without any consensus to move the page. – Marco79 04:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you try discussing this with Jenks first? Or did you come straight here? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No, Jenks24 seems to be inactive since November, but I did put a notice on user's talk page, which I think should be enough. – Marco79 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I watched that move discussion. It was not a good one. The move was proposed on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the opponents argued that while it might be common, it's wrong. Since such posts completely missed the point of WP:COMMONNAME, I can understand why the move occurred. Since opponents missed the point of WP:COMMONNAME, they feel ripped off. Attempts at explanation at the time got nowhere. I doubt if they will now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I participated in the RM (and supported moving it) and HiLo's description is 100 percent correct. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think HiLo48 has missed the point too. Some of the opponents were making the point that they are both common names, but one is a more correct terminology (ie, Union Flag) then the other (ie, Union Jack). Some of the supporters were only supporting common name and not making any other claims as to why. – Marco79 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of the supporters were also dismissing the term Union Flag as a common name, even though many media outlets now use it (ie, BBC in Britain, ABC in Australia, various worldwide newspapers, etc.) and it is also used in pop culture (ie, Doctor Who, etc), so to say that it is uncommon is not right. – Marco79 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In the UK the expression is not "waving a union flag" (most Brits wouldn't have a clue what that meant): it is "waving a union jack". That would apply to commentary during the BBC's coverage of the Queen's Jubilee (despite the rain). Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no expression for "waving a union jack either"! Do you have any evidence to support your statement that "Brits wouldn't have a clue what that meant"? I doubt it. And the BBC commentary used the term union flag most of the time, apart from ocassional lapses to union jack. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is it a "lapse" to say Union Jack? Are you sure you're really being objective here, or pushing a particular POV? HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Here are some examples from the BBC.[1][2] (jack/flag "pedantry" is discussed by an expert) [3], [4], etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we can all find references on the BBC [5] [6] [7]. Your last penultimate one is a comment from a member of the public, rather than from the BBC per se. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Schrodinger's cat is alive, why not just go and order that BBC "Union Jack Party Set" while stocks last? There's certainly plenty of Union Jack saucers for milk or even cream, if you feel like celebrating. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Either way, there is certainly no consensus to move, as can be seen from the page, so why was the decision taken? - SchroCat (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Two editors aggressively opposed does not prevent a consensus in support of a move. It's worth noting that the closing Admin's comments included the words "The comments in support are significantly stronger, in terms of Wikipedia policy, than those in oppose." I'm pleased to see quality of argument being credited here. Too many want such discussions to be treated as a vote. We don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenks24 said "The comments in support are significantly stronger, in terms of Wikipedia policy, than those in oppose." Now I haven't read through the discussion but that does not negate the fact that they thought there was one. I noticed the discussion was closed 29 August 2012 and the page moved the same day. It's now just over four months later. I would have thought that if it was really important you would have contested it earlier. Go back to the talk page and try again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghits: "Union flag" – 6,110,000; "Union jack" – 14,800,000. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Not altogether scientific. No explanation of the use of "union jack", which is a correct term for the union flag on the jack-staff of a boat: a significant proportion of those uses would also be accounted for here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In the USA, at least, "Union Jack" would be the common name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If a new user types "Union Jack" into Wikipedia and finds out information about it, is there an issue? Nope - I don't see an issue over Myocardial infarction being an obscure term - most people will probably get to it via the common name Heart attack. Everything else is nitpicking. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a Brit (though getting old and possible out-of-touch with the Common Man, lol!) the term Union Jack, no matter how technically incorrect, is, in my experience, far more widely recognised here in the UK by The Common People. It's what we all call it (and yes, many of us know it's technically wrong, but we do it anyway ...). What's wrong with the idea of just having one title as a redirect to the other ...? Pesky (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There already is a redirect. What you're seeing here is a microcosm of the countless wasted hours in wikipedia over "the names of things", arguments which are of no value to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Google hits in Australia: "Union flag" – 8,120,000, "Union Jack" – 18,200,000. The Australian government refers to it as The Union Jack (also known as the Union Flag). Many of the Google results for "union flag" are for something other than the British flag, such as European Union flag (site is blacklisted), CBNGN-003 Union Flag, Transformers Union flag, Grand union flag from the first 20 results; whereas all of the first 20 results for "Union Jack" address the British flag or something named after the British flag. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sooooo ... disambiguation page for "Union Flag", with links to the relevant articles, with "Union Jack" being the one which many of us know as the Union Jack? ;P Pesky (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Folks, we're not re-running a page move request on ANI. Does anyone other than the original poster think that the admin responsible for the move acted improperly in such a way as to constitute abuse of his tools? No? Then this conversation can be had on the article talk page, and if there is consensus for a move back then someone else can go and action that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2013 (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.

Legal threats and incivility from User:Old Lanky[edit]

Old Lanky has stated that he will not be pursuing any legal action, and he and I have settled any disputes between us. The only remaining matter is the sockpuppets who were pestering OL, addressed below. That's right, what started as a request for protection at AN turned into a sockpuppet investigation at AN/I. OL has opened up an SPI, but I see no reason not to leave the sub-thread open until things are sorted out that end. *Inhales.* Ahh, I love the smell of bureaucracy in the morning. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:25, 6 January 2013 (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.

Old Lanky has threatened to notify the police about two IP contributors (or, perhaps more likely, one contributor with two IP addresses). His reason is that they're trolls, which, apparently, is illlegal in the UK.[citation needed] Reading User talk:Old Lanky#Back Again, I'll agree that they're being a bit rude, but he more than makes up for it with his own incivility [8], even giving me shit after I did him the courtesy of not being a dolt and checking to see if there was anything of actual substance to his claims. (I mean, sure, the comments are a bit mean, but if I tried to have everyone who accused me of sockpuppetry arrested, the prisons would be overflowing.) Regardless of merits of his complaint, this seems like a pretty clear-cut NLT violation, and since he's stated repeatedly [9] [10] that he's willing to be blocked, I suggest we give him his wish. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given this response you made to him, I'm inclined to block you both. However that would be ultimately self-defeating, so I instead choose to bash your two heads together and tell you to play nice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone is clearly being a WP:DICK and accusing him of being a sock, without the cojones to actually file an SPI report. Continually accusing someone of socking without filing is WP:UNCIVIL. However, the response by Lanky is almost "methinks thou do'est protest too much". His talkpage isn't going to be protected as he asked for because it's not harassment, not at least how he's linked it. If Lanky wants to make legal threat, then yes, block'em. If he wants to revert and ignore (because he cannot block by himself), then it's the most intelligent way forward. If the person starts edit-warring with him, etc, it will become more of an offence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Add: Deskana, don't forget to block the IPs :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to semi the talk page, especially if it continues. Those IP edits don't looked like an unbanned user without a problem to me. Not excusing that response in any way. BTW, I seem to have come across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. That's the IP, right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair point Bwilkins. IPs blocked for one month due to clearly not being here to contribute constructively. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
In re my response, perhaps I was a bit crabby, but he'd already engaged in all sorts of nasty language, and I don't see much of a problem with not taking nicely to being talked down to by someone who I was trying to save from an NLT indefblock (which is what I was doing - I could've easily taken him here after his first refusal to retract the threat). Either way, as I said, the incivility isn't nearly as much of a problem as the threat. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
He's been warned for it and as far as I can see hasn't done it since, so I consider the matter resolved. You definitely need to be more civil though, because honestly you don't help your case when you report someone for violating policy and you're also guilty of doing so yourself. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't really think I had a case to be helped - I was under the impression that users have to retract any outstanding legal threats if they wish to avoid being blocked; was I mistaken? To me, the incivility was just gravy, and if you really think my comment was equal to some of his, then I don't see how I can convince you otherwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Been looking at some of the stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive per zzuuzz above who has definitely hit the nail on the head. It is a long saga of abuse and disruption aimed at the WP:Cricket project in general and at two of its members in particular, both of whom were named in the allegations levelled at me. I note especially that the troll has formerly used this tactic of accusing new users of being an alias of one of his two enemies to try and get all parties discredited. He has failed each time, mainly because his targets have always been genuine editors, and I daresay he will not go through the proper procedure you mentioned above because he knows he will fail. He has picked on me because I found an attack on Associate Affiliate and challenged it. I see he is subject to WP:BAN which looks very final, but evidently is not. May one suggest that the site should allow members only to edit? "Anyone can edit" does tend to mean "anyone will edit". --Old Lanky (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One may suggest it but it's unlikely to happen as explained here. NE Ent 15:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that link, NE Ent. Very enlightening. Having read that, and given recent experience, I've decided to rejoin the ranks of the IP community and stay there among the 76% to 82% whose edits benefit the encyclopaedia. I'll miss the watchlist, HotCat, page moves and Twinkle but I managed without them before. All the best to the genuine editors and admins. So long. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (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.

While we're on the topic[edit]

BDOPAF (talk · contribs) and two IPs blocked by Dennis. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:11, 7 January 2013 (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.

Could somebody a bit more familiar with the case history here please tell me if BDOPAF (talk · contribs) looks like another Richard Daft sock? I just got this wholly unconstructive comment as I was trying to put this whole thing to bed - clearly an AGF violation, and I see no way that someone with 12 edits would have a reason to allege sockpuppetry without being a sock themselves. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If an editor suspects a master spi is preferred, especially since A & F isn't following two ANI practices (i.e. discuss w/ editor first, and notify user if discussing on ANI). Spi does not require notifying a user. NE Ent 16:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. I had a little unfinished business before I go. I looked at this SPI process and rounded up all the recent IDs of this Daft individual and listed them there. The IPs are either gone or have been banned per the discussion above, but F&A is absolutely right that a ban must be placed on BDOPAF. Bye now. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do all that, OL. JSYK, you should read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF before you get yourself TROUTed by any of the grumpier ANI-watchers (grumpier than most, that is Face-wink.svg). — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When a user with 12 edits tracks me down to accuse a previously harassed editor of being a sockpuppet, and there's strong reason to believe they are in fact banned, I think that that constitutes a fairly solid exception to AN/I S.O.P.. As for your other point, please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm well aware of the differences between SPI and ANI, and thought it would be more effective to bring it up here. If you think an SPI would be more useful, then you're welcome to start one, but you know as well as I do that "You filed your paperwork in the wrong place" is not a valid response, especially to a very simple question. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:00, 6 January 2013 (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.

Indirect personal attack of making "racist comments"[edit]

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.

The following entry onto the user’s talk page was made the day before the IBAN issued the following day, so perhaps it is not a violation of that, but it would certainly appear to be an indirect personal attack insinuating that I am a racist for making comments about dissimulation and the Mossad, and Evildoer187's irrational attacks against anything he deems to be "Anit-Zionist" in the context of discussion where RS mention “Zionist colonialism” and the like.

Perhaps he is trying to equate Zionism with Judaism, but that is inconsistent with the definition(s) of Zionism, nor with discussion such as that in this official UN publication THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.

There is nothing racist in my comments, and I would like such insinuations removed from this website.

“racist comments” diff

you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous dissimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it, just like those NGO directors, right?!

re: “ABOUT US”

NGO data on UN site

The following diffs are instances in which he accused me of "spreading crass anitsemitic conspiracy theories", mentions “Stormfront”, etc.: [11], [12], [13], [14]

Another user has described him as follows “personal crusade”

In response to this comment by deskana [15], I referred to him as a “Zionist zealot” reply to deskana, to which he took offence.



Anti-Zionist zealot”

Here previously had this remark on his user page I am extremely outspoken on antisemitism, and largely unsympathetic to anti-Zionist viewpoints.

So I repeat, there is nothing remotely racist in my statements, and would like any suggestion that there was removed. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I have blocked this user violating his interaction ban with Evildoer187. Ubikwit has actually already violated this ban once by indirectly referring to Evildoer, however he later reverted his comments so I let the matter slide. A second violation will not be tolerated. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the actual substance of this report, these matters all took place before the interaction ban was put in place. The interaction ban is a sufficient sanction to prevent further violations. Regrettably, this has demonstrated that Ubikwit is clearly not able to stick to his interaction ban despite the terms of it being made very clear to him. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:00, 7 January 2013 (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.

Any admins with OTRS access (permissions)[edit]

Daffodil International Professional Training Institute is a CV of [16]. There is a message on the article talk page suggesting that permission has been emailed; in light of which, I've not CSD tagged it, but the talkpage post is dated 22 November 2012, yet the article was only created today. All looks very sus. If it is deleted there are several redirects from incorrect page moves in the page history. Pol430 talk to me 23:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:Cantaloupe2[edit]

This editor has become tiring and tenditious constantly pushing his "America-centric" genocide obsession into articles destroying numeric charts and any technical example that uses numeric "America-centric" information. He was advised not to do this by several editors and yet he persists[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22].

When his edits are challenged or removed he progresses to tagging the article to excess despite being requested not to do that by other editors. Look here where his edits have been challenged repeatedly and what resulted to the article. What would readers think? An angry person was allowed to make a mess of WP?

When talk page discussions are initiated he attempts to confuse the issue with side-tracking issues(first and second sentence are not related or topic) and then avoids continuing to consensus or resolution.[23],[24],[25] This is not a newbie and these tenditious edits appear to be very WP:Pointy with his "America-centric" genocide article disruption. His attitude are pushing editors into just giving up.

Being followed around with many edits challenged with some new pointy policy angle seems like simple harrassment is just not worth the stress.

Here are my communications on his talk page. I named him in an IPsockpuppet CU, by accident (sloppy cut n paste) My apology and further request for him not to group large quantities of edits.[26] but it seems he may hold a grudge[[27]and it seemed another distraction from the talkpage discussion at hand. I attempted to stay on topic with.[28] [29].

I attempted to explain how I felt about his disruption of articles.[30][31] after his injection of facetious edit history comments and data. here - note history. He responded with rejection and this. I don't believe I made any ad hominem remarks and tried to only refer to his edits. He did comment on my mention of his "America-centric obsession" as a personal attack. "America-centric" is Cantaloupe2's favoured phrase and he admits it frequently in many edits and histories.

I feel I have attempted to resolve this matter amicably a few time to no avail. After seeing other editors frustrated by the same POV pushing I came here in a frustrated attempt to fix this waste of editing time. Thanks. (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 notified. [32] (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see a dubious pattern of edits on electrical engineering topics, but haven't yet seen anything about genoicide. Can you clarify? bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I switched comment order for clarity (above) Perhaps "genocide" is not the correct term for this. Cantaloupe removes any North American references, especially numeric data from articles. Some conflicts I have observed of this was Compact fluorescent lamp [33] where he removed all dollar data from a financial comparison chart, calling it spam. Then he proceeded to remove referenced edits that used the American EPA[34]. A US Coast Guard reference was deleted claiming it was "political propaganda"[35]. US magazine Times online reference[36]. Notice the edit history[37] and how section motion hides edits. I mentioned this to him (see link above). Changes any numeric examples to "American" label referring to talk page comments that didn't exist. More pointy edits.[38] Then when the campaign doesn't get consensus from editors he begins flagging articles with pointy tags.
It should be noted that I am Canadian and have no interest in any particular AmEng bias. I want numeric examples as readers can relate to them better than abstract formulae (50%Va-b). I believe this area-generic POV is negative to tech article clarity. Invitations to add other area examples were welcomed several times, that I witnessed. (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Per the admin SpinningSparks, I was advised it should be globally focused, and not just English language. In the article, complainant wants America specific hard numbers which were arbitrarily chosen historically. Of those, the user arbitrarily chose some applied examples such as 120:208, 347:600. The number pair maintains a relationship which is 1:√3. Since it was disputed by the complainant, I compromised with including both that and a region neutral numeric values based on % scale, so 100:173. Same issue in this article Delta-wye_transformer where the user inserted a list of region/Canada proprietary numbers. I find that such proprietary values are not encyclopedic and replacing them with universal formula ensures global neutrality. It would be a limited audience interest, such as for electrical wiring technicians in a relevant. There's no reason that people versed with enough prior knowledge to read this article needs a looong list of number tables to understand it. The article isn't a list of world's various voltages.To expand on actual technical implementation which an editor commented have no place in articles, the article would be filled with country by country list of every voltage set imaginable which is not informative in expanding in the contents discussed. But Wiki is not a directory.
Preference to build articles to revolve around one region is biased and is a neutrality issue. This editor also accuse me of incompetence while continuing to add free write contents based on anecdotes and personal experience which ignores the expectations of verifiability with in inference that the user itself is competent.
Addressing the CFL article issue, this is discussed in article Talk:Compact_fluorescent_lamp#NPOV talk. The complainant singularly objected based on unfounded reasoning "The average reader wants to know about the bottom line... money". I also removed references to price, because they are inappropriate web store links where items are sold, which is not permitted here as references as it is a magnet for spam. Expressing it in terms of $ and unit cost is like expressing a car's mileage in terms of miles per American dollar of gas at the day the article is written whereas my approach to simply list the watt is like approaching it in 100km/L which is not time sensitive. I removed a good chunk of article that was advancing political concerns which was straying off topic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, regarding this contention provided, go back one more edit. You corrected a spelling error, but along with it, you removed a "[who?]" tag from unattributed statement, but did not replace it with a reference. I restored the tag, because the statement was not referenced. Going back some more edits, you inserted a statement which appears to come from your thoughts without attribution.unreferenced addition. I asked you not to insert anecdotal evidence. When something is challenged, the burden is on the person restoring or inserting to WP:PROVEIT. Removal of reference requested tags without providing reference is nonconstructive. I tagged them, because I'm challenging the claim you're making. You claimed that this design may make it more susceptible to metering error, and that the resulting product 1/2*V(Ph to Ph)*√3 is inherently more uncommon than 1/2*ph to ph or ph to ph voltage. I'm not convinced and when I challenge it, the policy says you have to prove it. My guess is that you made common/uncommon based on comparison of voltages provided by such systems in applied actual technical practice in your municipality incorporation. Centering whats common and not common around your locale and applying to article that is supposed to be globally neutral is where my contention of Geo-centrism comes from. This is the kind of thing I believe VQuakr said does not have place in article here Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to this edit where English is not mentioned at all? Was there another statement by Spinningspark other than his clarification of the guideline? (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
correct. You also inquired who to cater to if it isn't for Europe or America. In the question you posted on SpinningSpark's talk page, he told you that it should cover globally here. When you constrain the coverage, it causes the language to be an envelope that distorts worldwide coverage. Some of the longest transmission lines are Russia, China, Brazil and such. Also, Japan has very well established electrical distribution system as well. All four countries I just mentioned ideally should receive equal weight. Some region centric examples you disseminate as common, popular, often used, etc are likely to be misnomer in world wide usage. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe this was where contentions begun. An admin SpinningSparks mentioned article should represent global point of view. Before my edit, it was filled with examples, advantages, disadvantages that revolve around installations specific to US systems. I replaced examples with formulas. When the complaining IP editor expressed that reader may have trouble with formulas, I added a geographically neutral examples using percent scaled example. In my good faith edit, this was a better approach than addressing each technical variation for every country. An editor commented to me that actual technical application shouldn't stay in the article as well. The IP editor continue to insert first hand accounts and anecdotal interpretive statements and nagged me with WP:COMPETENT even though many of his additions are not verifiable. I am all about writing it so that it is region free and examples are not geo-centric to particular place and the IP editor contends I'm "obsessed with America centric".
While this is on the table, I would like to present my concerns with harassment from the complainant pejorative remarks such as "temper tantrum" "obsession" and misrepresenting me as "admitting to less than positive intentions". The diff in question. According to WP:TPNO his insulting, ad hominem attack left on my page violates WP:CIVIL policies. The comment was left on my talk page, perhaps by coincidence, shortly after I sought SpinningSparks comments over contentious comments on complainant's own talk page labeled interesting edits which includes contentious tags of other users, such as "agenda" "coverup" "competent" and even libelous misrepresenting another editor DieSwartzPunkt as: "admission of sock puppetry"(when the investigation found that editor not malicious). Since WP:TALK says general rules for talk page applies, I would think that his behavior of misrepresenting other editors fall under WP:TPNO behavior.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Cantaloupe2, Please do not canvass hostile editors as you did with this edit. See WP:Canvassing. I realise you are quite upset right now but a few hostile editors to attack me may complicate this process. This needs to be a learning experience for both of us so we may work in harmony later. I fear the editor in question has gone or morphed again and he was a good tech guy. (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of canvassing. In my response, I addressed some behavioral concerns about you which includes your accusation of sockpuppueting towards the aforementioned editor and failing to assume good faith. Since that dispute discussed involved him/her, it was a courtesy notice. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IP, if Cantaloupe2 mentions another user in discussing your report (with its highly inappropriate previous title), it is perfectly in order for him to inform that user. Your comment about realising that Cantaloupe2 is "quite upset" is unhelpful and borders on harassment. The underlying issue of using country-independent examples concerns content rather than conduct, so can't really be addressed here. There is no need to add a signature (four tildes) to your edit summaries. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I understood these notices should remain in a neutral tone. I felt "One of the discussions I've added there is the sock puppetry accusation made towards you by the same editor." could be interpreted as an attempt invoke a certain response from an editor. Thanks. (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:POT: you're the user who wrote "genoicide" in the original title here; you're the one that seems to be collecting a laundry list on his user talk page. Please watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Facts:Several issues are getting discussed here. Of those issues, your accusation of him sock puppeting is the only issues that concerns him, therefore what I left him is consistent with notifying him that there is a discussion where he is mentioned, and how it pertains him. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
IP, please do not insert comments in the middle of Cantaloupe2's postings. It makes everything unreadable. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. I thought I saw a signature. Thanks for fixing! (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that I have been referenced in this discussion. My comments seem to have been somewhat misrepresented. It is true that I have advised that articles should take a worldwide perspective.[39] However, this was in the context of replying to whether an article written in American English should use exclusively American numeric examples. I have not advised Cantaloupe2 (or anybody else) that algebraic examples are preferable to numeric examples. For what it's worth, I have given exactly the opposite advice.[40] SpinningSpark 14:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I hadn't seen Cantaloupe2 until a couple of weeks ago. Since then I've seen him trying to make a thorough mess of articles on cycling (Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic), bicycle wheel) and electrical engineering (synchronous motor & others) and even arcane Mac crypto, editing from a basis of blinkered, dogmatic policy recitation and a slavish avoidance of subject knowledge, whilst energetically attacking every editor who does know something about a topic. His editing locus bounces between a range of complex topics whose only common factor seems to be that he knows equally little about each. I'm reminded mostly of Oscar Wilde on cynics (look it up Cantaloupe, I don't expect you to know it, but we used to have an encyclopedia here).
The only question remaining would seem to be, When's he running as an Admin?
Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
What does the synchronous motor article have ANYTHING to do with me? You know that addition of contents revolve around verifiability. You have some edits like this one where you make changes with assertion that "simply wrong", but don't leave proper reference to support your stance and rely on self confidence and accuse me of lacking knowledge. Wikipedia is not a repository of original research and if something is challenged, policy says that burden of proof is on the inserting editor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having read the delta-wye and high-leg delta articles, they appear to me worse off than they were before the recent round of editing (not that either was a gem to begin with, but one-line sections with maintenance tags on the titles are just silly). Examples are meant to be just that – a small selection from practical usage. Just because an article doesn't list every voltage in use around the world doesn't mean that it's wrong, nor that one should remove such examples just because they're American (or Canadian, Ethiopian, Liechtensteinian, etc.). This being English WP, I don't see anything wrong with examples from only the U.S., U.K., or Canada. Anyone is free to add examples if warranted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Before it was an article written from first hand experience, so the whole thing bordered on original research. Do you suggest that we let a whole bunch of unreferenced anecdotal claims remain?
This is the before and afterwhere the dispute begun. The contents were so focused around North America that much of it didn't apply elsewhere. Before reversion by an IP editor, it looked there was no major POV. What is your input on discussion of "advantages" "disadvantages" that only pertains to American/Canadian technical applications but do not hold true worldwide? I know China, Russia have significant electrical infrastructure as well as india, but there is not equal representation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said, they weren't great to begin with. A lot of the conclusions need either explanation or citation (preferably both) because they're not obvious. However, that's not the issue. I contend, as do the others arguing here I think, that "equal representation" is not required. If someone wants to add distinct examples for China, Russia, India, and Zimbabwe, they're welcome to it, though I expect some commonality might exist between at least some of them. The fact that those examples haven't been inserted is not a reason to remove others, though. Most articles do not, and should not, claim to contain exhaustive, or even equally representative examples. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so if the examples are not equally representative of every country thats that. If the prose paints the whole topic with the same brush based on local practices how would I best address it? Let's say article about steel bases its advantages and disadvantages about the whole article based on a specific usage without attributing to that specific usage Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with the "tiring and tenditious" assessment. In six years and 12,000 edits, I have never encountered an editor nearly as difficult to work with as User:Cantaloupe2. After four weeks and nearly 100 edits, we've managed to get Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) to just about where it was before he started on it. Sure, there are now dozens of new in-line citations for details that were trivial and not likely to be challenged by anyone familiar with the topic and easily verifiable by anyone who bothered to verify them by checking the perfectly reliable references already provided, but what a waste of time and energy.
Instead of assuming good faith by previous editors, raising questions on the talk page, or even adding references he finds so necessary, he just starts tagging and deleting: [41], [42], [43]. The question of notability and the assertion that the article "relies on references to primary sources" were both laughable, given that the article already contained references to Brown's obituary in The Times of London, The Boston Globe, and BikeRadar. Given that The Times called Brown's knowledge of bicycles "encyclopedic", The Globe called him a "sage in cyberspace", and BikeRadar called him a "human encyclopedia of bicycling knowledge", I cannot see how the paraphrasing summary of "technical authority" could be deleted for NPOV without assuming bad faith from previous contributors.
At first, I thought it was just some annoying but relatively harmless drive-by tagging, but User:Cantaloupe2 has stuck around, fought nearly every actual attempt at improvement ([44] [45] [46]), and now has explicitly accused me twice of deleting a self-published-source tag he inserted. After the first time, I showed him that I did no such thing, and he replied with a non sequitur. After the second time, I asked him to either show where I did it, or retract his accusation. In the five days since, he's made several edits to the article and the talk page, but hasn't found the time to respond to my request. In the meantime, extensive attempts to resolve differences on the talk page just go in circles.
Everyone has a bad day or makes a mistake or two, but this has dragged on for weeks. After this experience, I find it completely not surprising to find this discussion ranging over several unrelated articles and involving several editors. That User:Cantaloupe2 also appears to be challenging every point also fits with my experience. Nor do I find it surprising that a search of the Administrator's Notice Board archives finds 4 previous incidents in which he has been embroiled. So far he has managed to skate just short of whatever line he needs to cross to invoke some kind of action, but I think the pattern is pretty well established, and I hope we can bring all this foolishness to an end somehow. -AndrewDressel (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Now there is this. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover tag removals[edit]

User:Tagremover is back removing tags (at Superzoom) without comment[47], then claiming "No details specified"[48] (ignoring details in talk[49]). Tried a change to "refimprove" tag based on the basic lack of reliable sources since the editor ceased input at talk page[50] and editor refuses to get the point of the need for reliable sources (even feigning ignorance of WP:RS?)[51][52].

The user's views on tags are expressed here, here, and at the end of this ANI. Tag removal has been an ongoing activity, usually without comment or attempt to improve the noted problem. I can't see the reason for the removal of many "Unreferenced" tags unless it is a further view that Wikipedia should be a work of original research. Other examples:

Examples of tag removals from Feb-March 2012

Lens (optics) removes tag without comment[53]

Optical aberration- removes tag[54], removes again[55]

Angle of view - removal of tag without comment[56]

Summer Science Program - removal of tag without comment[57]

Intel 8061 - removal of tag without comment[58]

Image editing - removal of tag without comment[59]

Color image pipeline - removal of tag without comment[60]

Fisheye lens - removal of tag without comment[61]

SteadyShot - removal of tag without comment[62]

Aircraft industry - removal of tag without comment[63]

Fuselage - removal of tag without comment[64]

Narrow-body aircraft - removal of tag without comment[65]

China Aviation Industry Corporation I - removal of tag without comment[66]

Jet airliner - removal of tag without comment[67]

Airliner - removal of tag without comment[68]

Camera lens - removal of tag without comment[69][70], again[71] claiming its "unexplained" ignoring existing talk[72], again[73], again[74]

Focus (geometry) - removal of tag without comment[75]

Anastigmat - removal of tag without comment[76]

Zeiss Sonnar - removal of tag without comment[77]

Full frame - removal of tag without comment[78]

Nikon 1 series - removal of inline tags without comment[79]

Carl Zeiss AG - removal of tag without comment[80]

Softune - removal of tag without comment[81]

SPARClite - removal of tag without comment[82]

NEC SX-9 - removal of tag without comment[83]

Bayonet mount - removal of tag without comment[84]

Streaming media - removal of tag without comment[85]

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the examples listed above are from nearly a year ago. However, Tagremover has been edit warring for the past week or so on Superzoom, repeatedly removing cleanup tags despite complaints from other users [86][87][88][89][90][91]. This is disruptive, and he clearly has a history of doing this as evidenced by the year-old diffs posted in the original complaint above. The username doesn't help. I have blocked Tagremover for 72 hours for edit warring. Future disruption of this sort might warrant a topic ban on removing cleanup tags. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing[edit]

see below, no WP:Consensus , suggest backing off and seeing if any disruption continues - Youreallycan 10:02, 8 January 2013 (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.

I am reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff [92]. He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff [93]. I believe that his intentions on Wikipedia with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: [94], where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS
  • The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
  • For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
  • The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
  • Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
  • the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
  • Soviet...the first socialist society.
  • With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: [95].--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff [96]. Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Wikipedia at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,[97], Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
i am sorry you are frustrated. i am also confused that you think i am still pushing the proposal when i have said twice now i am no longer pursuing the proposal. i do not intend to edit the socialism article or talk now, or in the near future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
How is that going to resolve your long-term disruptive editing behaviour? All that does is let's you off the ticket on this one instance of such editing behaviour by us taking your word that you won't edit it now or in the "near future" (whatever that means), and I can tell this is going to happen again by the behaviour you have demonstrated today, and in TFD's report that shows you doing the same behaviour in multiple other articles. You have failed to adhere to the advice in TFD's report, you have expired the patience of multiple users with your consensus-violating behaviour. Why should we believe that such behaviour by you on Wikipedia is going to stop now when it hasn't despite people repeatedly telling you to cease such behaviour in the past?--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
i hav e resolved my long term behavior by not wanting to edit articles in which the sources i present are not accepted contrary to my opinion. each article i have edited, as well as the articles i have authored have all included sources. some, like the mexican constitution in the article i created, Immigration to Mexico, are allowed as sources, some arent like here. i see the other editors point that maybe the soviets were lying to trick people into thinking they were the 1st socialist state. perhaps someone here knows the real answer to who was the 1st socialist state, what a great way to end this debate, with a simple answer to a simple question. happy new year all, if we are still here, we must be the only/intelligent friends we have left, egészségére! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable[edit]

per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. [98] the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

  • source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
  • source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
  • source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
  • source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
  • source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
  • source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
actually the main difference is one of us attempts to win consensus in talk before making an edit, which once it became clear no amount of sources would satisfy, i never made edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I already told you that I began a discussion with the user to resolve his disagreements, the issue of my edit is moot because it has been resolved, your long-term disruptive editing behaviour involving violation of policy at WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on Talk:Socialism and multiple articles is what is at hand here, and it has been recognized by multiple users here as a problem.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
i heard you several times, however since you have not read many/all of the sources to which you object, i did not feel it quite time to close the thread. you are also a socialist according to your home page, which perhaps explains your sensitivity to this topic, i truly am sorry for any discomfort my proposal caused you. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Given Darkstar1st's obvious refusal to accept consensus and stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd support a topic ban on Socialism articles (broadly construed). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
actually i have accepted consensus and agreed not to pursue the proposal further, see above. please note no edit was ever made, rather a collection of RS presented on the talk page when editors objected to the previous sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I said nothing about any edits, so bringing it up is odd. I only speak of your tendentious and persistent inability to accept consensus. And I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
the incident here is concerning wp:disrupt, according to the complainant. wp:disrupt does specify the term edit. each source should be given examination according to wp:weight. it was my sincere belief with the right source the edit could be made. perhaps an easier path would simply add what the sources did say, since so many think i have taken the words out of context. or maybe the topic simply isnt relevant as one editor suggests. i still feel it would serve the article by identifying the 1st socialist state however i understand it is the consensus to not include such and see no reason to continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You are attempting Wikilawyering, particularly examples 2, 3, and 4 shown in the intro of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. It says that technicalities cannot be used to justify actions that violate the spirit and underlying principles of Wikipedia. Regardless, your claim of making a distinction between "editing" of articles as being distinct from that on talk pages is inaccurate, Help:Editing includes a section on "Talk (discussion) pages". The intentions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are clear, that failing or refusing to accept consensus is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. You have repeatedly ignored consensus when it has rejected your assertions.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
i wish i could be more clear, i am sorry for the distress i caused you, i will not pursue the proposal further, i have no intention of editing the article or talk page in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You shouting in bold and offering promises that you will not do it again are not convincing to me and appears to not be convincing to HandThatFeeds, you have ignored all complaints by multiple other users about your failure to accept consensus on multiple articles in the past. It is not a matter of distress by me, that is trivial and I am not distressed; nor is it a matter of the proposal alone; it is a matter of long-term disruptive behaviour by you on Wikipedia. I and other users are seeking a resolution to this long-term problem of you refusing to accept consensus on multiple articles. Hours ago you attempted to say that "editing" doesn't include talk pages in order to avoid responsibility of violation of WP:DISRUPT on a technicality, I showed that the technicality was false. Now you are attempting to bargain by offering promises in order to avoid topic bans that I and several other users here all agree are necessary. If you had listened to the advice by TFD, me and others in TFD's report that explicitly warned you about your behaviour and gave you one last chance to desist in such behaviour, then circumstances would have been different now, but you did not listen and continued your disruptive behaviour. The fact is that the patience of multiple users with your conduct has expired, I, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds all agree that topic bans should be applied, along with the administrator Postdlf saying he may endorse a topic ban. HandThatFeeds said to you "I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters", I agree with HandThatFeeds' conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I'm feeling like this should perhaps just be closed now, and I'm not 100% convinced a topic ban is necessary at this point (though I can't say I'm actively opposed to one either). He says he'll drop it, and that promise in the context of this ANI (in which everyone commenting has agreed there is a problem) should be considered a serious one, with serious consequences if he breaks it. If he does break it, or continues the same kind of tendentious and poor editing at other articles on the same subjects, just come back to ANI and I think a topic ban then might be imposed in short order.

I'd also recommend to Darkstar that he look into a WP:MENTOR, because as I've said above, his demonstrated ability to interpret and use sources (and relevant WP policy) seems lacking. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at TFD's report and look at the multiple incidents TFD has noted where Darkstar1st has violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It shows that multiple users been over this with Darkstar1st over and over again. I was the most liberal of them in that report, I gave him advice on how to improve his understanding of socialism amongst other advice, but he didn't listen to anyone and he hasn't changed his behaviour. Neither I nor HandThatFeeds trust his promises. There are limits to patience and trust given behaviour. Also, look at how he is approaching this: hours ago he attempted to use a technicality to avoid responsibility for violation of WP:DISRUPT, saying that talk pages don't count for "editing". It is my belief that he is tactically bargaining while having no real intention to change his behaviour. Accepting his promises will cause this whole thing to have to be restarted all over again, plus multiple users here believe that topic bans are necessary - me, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban I just had a look at Darkstar1st's edits. It's pretty clear that he has wasted much time and effort being tendentious, and will likely be so in the future. I support a broad topic ban to prevent further disruption. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
no i will likely not be so in the future. one of the Wikipedia articles i created is considered high-importance, i plan to spend my time creating new articles of equal importance and leave the well established topics to the editors above. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
In that case, why are you so opposed to a topic ban? You say you have no intention of again editing articles relating to socialism or nazism. Some of us, who have requested a topic ban, doubt your ability to self-police this undertaking, and are requesting a topic ban in order to formalise a situation which you say that you respect. Opposing a topic ban suggests to me that you still intend to edit relevant articles or talk pages.RolandR (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If you say you won't edit them and you say that you recognize the harm of your actions, then why not take both responsibility for your actions that have exhausted patience and trust by other users, by accepting the topic bans as a form of insurance that will guarantee that you will not be able to edit them? Promises with no enforcement risk violation. So if you accept the harm of your action, you should accept the responsibility of having exhausted the patience of multiple users, and accept the topic bans on political topics, as RolandR has proposed, as insurance to guarantee your compliance.--R-41 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
you have been reverted twice this week for editing the lede of the very article we are discussing as your edit violated wp:weight [99] [100]. normally editors discuss major changes to established articles before. i sincerely thought the edit i proposed for a minor section would not be opposed. each time there was an objection to the source i presented, i found a different source thinking it would clarify the previous. now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) This is ANI, not the socialism-hair-splitting page. Whether any state has ever really been socialist, and if so, which one was first, is not something anyone reasonably expected to see discussed in earnest here, much less resolved. No-one is obliged to answer your riddles. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
To: Darkstar1st: Now you have jumped back from offering apologies to denouncing me and all the users at that talk page, who you just apologized to, indicating that we are "conspiring" against you because you "now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor". Wow, what a reversal in your attitude towards the other users on that talk page that earlier offered your "sincerest apologies", in only a matter of hours. And all because of a comment I said that simply asked you to accept a topic ban to provide insurance to your statement that said: "i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages".--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, i take back my apology and everything i have ever written you have read and every thought you think i thought: "I am familiar with your editing history, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. I read exactly what you intended to say" [101],. we will never cross paths again on ANY article of any subject, live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a gross overreaction, but interesting to note that you are saying that you have taken back your "sincerest apologies" a day or so after you gave them. Yes, I do not trust your behaviour given your long-term editing history on those topics, I have strongly disagreed with other users but have trusted their behaviour. But don't make this personal, plus you are not in a position to complain about aggravated about this situation you are in, multiple users are extremely aggravated about this situation, their patience has expired with your tendentious editing behaviour, and they do not trust your behaviour given your repeated violations of policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
perhaps, but it would be better for us to simply not interact. you have made several claims about my beliefs, none of which i agree. you are a socialist according to your own page and think i am anti-socialist which i disagree with as well. it is impossible for us to interact with this gulf, therefore i choose to not edit articles you edit. so long, no hard feelings. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop trivializing this as being personal. Multiple users here have called for topic bans on you for your disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
nothing personal, we just shouldn't interact. you believe something about me which i do not, therefore we are at an impasse. since you are a socialist, and care about this topic perhaps more than others, i now choose to avoid it so i may avoid you. i assume you have no interest in the other topics i edit and will be fine working on those, or i may quit entirely. after almost a decade here i am beginning to lose my zeal for the project. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If you are willing to work on other topics than political topics, and claim that you will avoid such topics given the situation that your violation of WP:IDIDN'THEATTHAT has created, then why not accept the topic bans on political topics as a form of insurance to guarantee your compliance?--R-41 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I worry for the future of articles like Nazism. Perhaps you missed this edit, or maybe not? the nazistic overtaking...the first real nazist... [102] the source listed refers to articles in the German language wikipedia. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (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.


There is no community consensus on what to do regarding Darkstar. Serious questions have been raised; some issues have been refuted or partially refuted by uninvolved or less-central participants, though a number of potentially serious issues remain. No community consensus exists on this remedy, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2013 (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.

This is going round in circles, like every other discussion involving Darkstar. In the discussion above, six editors (myself, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You and FurrySings) have all expressed support for some sort of topic ban. I therefore formally propose an indefinite topic ban for Darkstar1st on all articles and talk pages on political subjects, to include ideologies and individuals as well as parties RolandR (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as explained above. RolandR (talk)
  • Support as explained above.--R-41 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as explained above. TFD (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm familiar with Darkstar, and they are a unique editor and have some uncompleted edges, but I've seen their edits to be sound and well sourced. I have given the situation only quick read-through and it appears that the edit that they were trying to make is very well sourced (that the assertion the USSR was the first socialist state exists, not necessarily that it is determined) and actually required by the weight aspects of wp:npov. I saw some pretty wild looking arguments contrary to their proposed edits. One was that, contrary to what the sources said, that the USSR Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics was not socialist, another that prior situations were Socialist even if the sources did not call them such, but that the sources "meant' to say that they were. Those are wrong on two levels....editor debating the source, and then editing against sourcing/wp:npov. If Darkstar has any "offense" it appears that it was that they caved to the tyranny of the majority in that particular venue, not that they didn't cave quickly enough. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If you believe that accepting a consensus decision means accepting a "tyranny of the majority", maybe you should discuss your theory with those who founded Wikipedia. Wikipedia is founded upon seeking consensus. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You are defending his motives while ignoring the manner in which he acted.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There are many flaws in what you just said, but I'll go to the main point. In this case by "tyranny of the majority" I meant folks in a particular venue "voting" to override policy. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Straw polls here on ANI are regularly used. They are not binding to enforce any action here, but they do show administrators what users want to be done. The administrator can look at these, evaluate their validity, and then take discretion on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, on process grounds, ANI is not the proper venue for discussing such an immense wide-ranging whack against someone. Due to it's orientation for individual incidents, it has neither the structure and timetable for proper review and as a result not the participation (in any one thread....usually just the original combatants plus or or two people that run across it at ANI and chime in) for proper review of such a weighty wide-ranging proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His content may even be accurate (in that it is a theory widespread enough that it deserves mention). --Nouniquenames 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (Removed comment as per request by user, I questioned if the user had two accounts based on similarity of three colours used for each word in their user name that both had no spaces, I have no reason to assume any closely similar editing behaviour, so I am removing it.)--R-41 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Surely you know where SPI is. If you don't want to make an accusation, I'd request you strike the question. --Nouniquenames 05:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I will assume that you are telling the truth and remove it, but given the close similarity of the user name templates, the question was reasonable.--R-41 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support at least until we get a clear undertaking that the behaviour will cease. S/he goes on, and on, and on, and on .... ----Snowded TALK 05:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: There are two types of editors taken to task at ANI: (1) "I'm very sorry; I was wrong, and I won't do it again." (2) "Here's why I'm right ..." (several hundred words later, and repeated over a dozen or two posts), followed by "Okay, okay, I'll stop, you meanies." How very many times have we seen that #2's contrition is forced, unwilling, temporary and abandoned the moment the coast is clear? No. This matter is not moot. The easiest way to ensure that this editor stays away from such topics is to declare that he is to stay away from such topics. Ravenswing 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As an editor who gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with on account of his editing behaviour as exemplified above, I would support a topic ban to prevent other editors from going through that experience. Kudos to TDF and others for putting up with it for so long, and for keeping a calm head and staying rational in their interaction with this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Tendentious left-right fisticuffs at such venues as Talk:Socialism and Talk:Nazism abound. All parties need to knock it the hell off, and that includes editors from both the left and the right. Wikipedia is not a political blog. It is not a venue to declare black white and up down and to enforce that with 5 to 1 votes or whatever. It is not a place for trolling. Get busy writing articles and stop "debating" on big topics, all of you — that's my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This is to do with a user repeatedly violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st have been identified on several articles for many months, in a RfC/U initiated by the user TFD.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because of his long term behavior during his long running disputes, and the responses that he gave here. FurrySings (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's apologised and said that he isn't going to do it again. That's enough for me.  Tigerboy1966  22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Other users don't trust his apologies given his behaviour, such as the users Ravenswing and FurrySings here. Plus Darkstar1st keeps changing what he is saying, yes he claimed to apologize, but then later he accused all the users of refusing to hear him out, which is not true. His stances were criticized. I strongly suggest you look at the links to the discussion and the user TFD's RfC/U that are linked in the intro of this. TFD has been following Darkstar1st's editing behaviour longer than I have and has identified repeated examples of Darkstar1st violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic bans are not the proper means to remove an editor who is acting properly in a content dispute. The principle is to work towards consensus, not "declare a consensus first and remove those who disagree". Collect (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This is not a content dispute, nor is this about removing an editor. This is a dispute about editing behaviour, he has repeatedly violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT on several articles, even after being informed in the RfC/U that he was violating it. The proposal is the application of topic bans on political topics, removal is not the proposal here, the user can continue to edit non-political topics. Other users agree that this is a dispute over disruptive behaviour, such as User:SMcCandlish who has commented below in another section.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In this particular example, this user simply took part in a very long discussion at article talk page. I saw much longer discussions on other similar pages, and no one was reported. Are we going to report all such participants? I do not mind, but this is hardly consistent with policies. Now, speaking about the essence of the content dispute, every Soviet textbook claimed USSR to be the first socialist ("first stage of communism") state after Paris Commune which was first socialist government, not counting "primitive communism" societies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No, this is not a content dispute here. This is about editing behaviour. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, he kept pushing the topic after it had been unanimously rejected.--R-41 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the above - the area is populated by extremely opinionated users all round. Youreallycan 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Cynicism about users being opinionated does not justify ignoring clear and repeated examples of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st that have been noted by multiple users, and the multiple violations have been noted in the RfC/U filed by the user TFD, who is known to me to not be a highly opinionated user, but a user who seeks to follow Wikipedia principles to the letter. You should speak with TFD about Darkstar1st's behaviour, as TFD has been monitoring it longer.--R-41 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I consider that a topic ban is not the way out yet. I understand that, from what I've read, it seems to be the easiest solution; I find it a bit egoist. Maybe a formal case at ArbCom if DRN hasn't been proven yet would be a better path. — ΛΧΣ21 03:17, 6 January 2013 (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.


The request for Admin closure has been actioned above. If you want more why not open some other/yet another dispute resolution - it's harassing imo to carry this user editing concern at multiple high profile venues searching for editing restrictions/punishment - RFCU, ANI - why not, move along - let it go - see what further disruption ensues and report again, the only disruption remaining at this time is such as this desire for editing restrictions at multiple locations that are just not being supported - Youreallycan 09:46, 8 January 2013 (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.

I commented at the RFC/U and didn't know it was duplicated here. It appears that their insertion was a well sourced minority viewpoint and a valid insertion per wp:npov even if more folks there preferred or felt that it not be in. There is a provision in the quoted-in-the-complaint guideline (which at the opening above was mis-identified as policy) which identifies and protects this. Either way since Darkstar has doubly given in on this wp;anI appears to be a moot point. RFC/U would be the only proper (and properly thorough) venue to pursue things outside of this now moot/resolved incident. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is not a response to one content dispute; it is a response to persistent tendentious editing, over several months and several articles. RolandR (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There's an open RFC/U for that. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with RolandR. I said in the proposal that this is part of a long-term problem and I proposed topic bans for several topics to avoid future problems altogether. Darkstar1st ignored the basic request of the RFC/U report started by TFD, that called for Darkstar1st to accept consensus even when it disagrees with his stance, a call for him to adhere to the policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, but Darkstar1st failed to adhere to WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT after being informed by TFD and others of his need to do so. Darkstar1st attempted here to avoid responsibility for WP:DISRUPT on a technicality on what constitutes "editing", that was false premise. Then Darkstar1st has begun bargaining by offering promises. Multiple users here, including myself, believe that there is little reason to trust Darkstar1st's promises given the repeated nature of the disruptive behaviour of ignoring consensus in spite of being warned by multiple users not to do this.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
it is not moot because the RfC/U is on going and this is not a content dispute. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This ANI, within its proper scope, IS about assertions of behavior in a content dispute. The RFC/U is the proper & suitable place for the wide-ranging things people are bringing up here. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's about tendentious editing, it's about refusal to accept consensus, it's about failure to hear the argument and repeating the same point ad nauseam, it's about one editor who, for more than a year, over several articles and talk pages, has wasted the time and exhausted the patience and good faith of very many other editors, who want to put a stop to this. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
My point / opinion is that ANI is unsuitable for such a wide-ranging agenda with such wide-ranging actions being sought. And that RFC/U IS suitable for such North8000 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This does not have a "wide-ranging agenda" or "wide-ranging actions". Topic bans have been proposed for political topics in response to this user's repeated violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Darkstar1st ignored all the material in the RFC/U by the user TFD who filed the report, that informed him that his ignoring consensus was a violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, after he responded to the RFC/U he proceeded doing exactly the same behaviour on Talk:Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, RolandR, you seem to be completely mistaken about what this AN/I is about. It isn't about whether Darkstar1st has sources that might squeak though WP:RS, or is bringing up a minority but non-fringe viewpoint that needs to be addressed. This is about disruptive user behavior. Darkstar1st could have 5x that many sources but that wouldn't make the behavior acceptable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you meant to refer to the user North8000, RolandR agrees that this AN/I is about Darkstar1st's disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC user not closed[edit]

And I have reverted YRC's closure, since it did not meet any of the criteria for closure specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing RolandR (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note , I closed the RFC user after a requestfrom one of the certifiers at WP:AN - see here .. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC - Youreallycan 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

From "sincerest apologies" to serious accusations[edit]

Earlier Darkstar1st recognized that his edits caused harm and offered his "sincerest apologies" and promised not to edit the articles socialism and Nazism, specifically saying:

i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others

Then when asked by RolandR and then me that if he accepted responsibility for what he did and the loss of patience amongst users caused by his actions, why would he not then accept topic bans as a form of insurance to guarantee that he would not do so. Then his response completely reversed from offering apologies to insinuating serious accusations. He has just said:

now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He is in other words accusing all users involved there of deliberately rejecting his proposal out of a refusal to hear him out, rather than out of criticism of what he proposed. He is also inaccurate when he says here that his proposal was to say that the USSR was the first socialist state, his proposal specifically said the first "socialist society". His proposal was unanimously rejected and his use of the sources he chose was criticized by multiple users.

He has gone from offering apologies to launching accusations against all the users in that discussion who had unanimously rejected his proposal. Should the users involved in the discussion be informed of this serious accusation by Darkstar1st and asked to respond?--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it as "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort". But the most folks here can just read it for themselves rather than you are or me telling them what "it says". North8000 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If what you said is true that he believes "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort", that does not demonstrate any respect for policy at WP:CONSENSUS or WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT at all, only an angry and reluctant tactical abandonment to attempt to avoid the imposition of topic bans that many users here believe are necessary. This is what User:Ravenswing above has stated, that this kind of response by Darkstar1st is common of users who have been caught violating policy who are only reluctantly claiming to abandon their ways, but then when they believe the coast is clear, the disruptive behaviour returns. Other users above have similarly said they do not trust his promises, given his long-term behaviour and his behaviour even on this noticeboard. He is clearly saying that people refused to hear him out, while neglecting to note that his usage of sources was criticized and he expired the patience of users by keeping pushing for inclusion of the material in spite of their criticisms, and opening up section after section to push it, in spite of unanimous rejection of his proposal by other users, a blatant violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. That policy specifically says: "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
R-41, look from my view, who would want to edit articles with this amount of resistance to ones proposals in talk? i really do plan to stay as far away from this type of situation/topic/article/etc as possible. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am particularly concerned by Saddhiyama's comment above, that s/he gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with as a result of his behaviour. That alone is sufficient to keep him away from sensitive articles. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
To Darkstar1st: As RolandR has said, your behaviour has aggravated users like User:Saddhiyama to not even want to edit political articles where you have activity on them. You have repeatedly expired many users' patience on multiple occasions, and that is bad for the Wikipedia Project. Now if you really are planning to stay away from such political topics, then accept the proposed topic bans on political topics to provide insurance to concerned users here, that will guarantee compliance and the situation will be resolved. You could still edit non-political topic articles.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If I have any quests in Wikipedia, one of the is against mis-using the system to conduct gang warfare against an editor who the gang disagrees with. And that is what I see here, including much spin in the comments. I'm familiar with Darkstar from both when we agreed and disagreed. Their style is brief (possibly overly brief) discussions and edit summaries that often need a translator (vs. engaging deeply in more detailed conversations). Their edits are very intelligent and Wikipedian/source-based. For better or worse, they usually don't "cave" to the tyranny of the majority (e.g especially in any small kangaroo court venue) especially when they have policy on their side. I think that they caved too quickly on an insertion that many sources consider the USSR was the first socialist state. If the anti-Darkstar folks persist further, I think that it is time to reopen that question to a new debate on the underlying question with broader participation. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, On the RfC/U I was firm, but I offered Darkstar1st helpful advice on how to improve his understanding of the topics, and to behave more constructively. He ignored the advice and continued his disruptive behaviour. The most spin that I have heard here is coming from Darkstar1st who keeps changing the nature of his response from apologetic and concessionary to accusative. Also he has refused to give any answer to I and RolandR's question that if he does not intend to edit those topics, then why doesn't he accept the topic bans for insurance that he will not edit those topics? He refuses to answer the question, dodges it every time it has been asked and changes the subject. Calling people like me "anti-Darkstar" and that we "anti-Darkstar" people have conspired using "gang warfare" to create a "kangaroo court" governed by a "tyranny of the majority" are extreme examples of bias and spin, attempting to de-legitimize and belittle the long-term problems being addressed hereby portraying all the people supporting the topic bans as corrupt gangster-like thugs. As for "anti-Darkstar" "gang warfare" - I hardly know many of the users who have supported topic bans on Darkstar1st beyond first meeting most of them right here in the past few days, I have strong disagreements with TFD on topics, but both me and TFD agree topic bans are needed here.--R-41 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Clarifying the intent of one dramatic term that I used, by "Kangaroo court" I really meant that the discussion there (and the group that moved here) it is a small isolated venue. The other terms I meant exactly as they sounded., North8000 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to action here - and no community support for any topic ban - the report should be closed - keeping lengthy reports open at high profile noticeboards is undue and attacking in itself - this thread is over ripe to be closed.Youreallycan 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "no community support for any topic ban" ??? There are many users calling for a topic ban as can be seen above. Just a day ago, most users in the proposal for topic bans were in favour, now a few more people have arrived who are opposed, this is far from moot. I do agree that this has gone on long enough and that an administrator needs to arrive to make a decision.--R-41 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Either way this venue/format is not suitable for a discussion on such massive actions. North8