Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Curtaintoad[edit]

Dealt with. Further inquiries about this matter should be directed to the arbitration committee by email. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A couple of weeks ago, User:Curtaintoad signed the guestbook on my userpage. This morning, I received this comment on my talk page. Also, Curtaintoad currently has an indef block on their account. Does anyone know the rationale for the block? Also, is User:124.149.96.116 a possible sockpuppet of Curtaintoad? See also Special:Contributions/124.149.96.116. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: The rationale for this user's block is not important to this discussion. Rather, I would like to focus on the subject of possible sockpuppetry by the blocked user. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree. I'd be very interested to know the rationale for the block. I still haven't ready anything helpful in that regard. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There's something at User talk:Roger Davies. Apparently he thought that Curtaintoad was too young to have an account. De728631 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. That's interesting. Though I thought WP:CHILD only applied if the individual was doing little to contribute to the project.I'll take a look at his contributions. As for the sockpuppet, I just thought it was unusual for an IP user to ask specifically for something as trivial as a guestbook signature. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Curtaintoad's mum is active on Wikipedia, and I think she just wants him to channel his enthusiasm into productive areas. Therefore I'd say there is a reasonable amount of parental supervision going on here. From reading his talk page, Roger's comment implies the block is only temporary while some personal issues are addressed, so I don't see a need for socking. You might want to notify his mum of his discussion (can't remember the account now). FWIW my friend's (now) 14 year old kid signed up to Facebook under-age, but you'd never know as she's mature and sensible for her age. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Curtaintoad's mum is WendyS1971 (talk · contribs). As you can tell from her contributions, she has made no apparent on-Wiki comment on the situation. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know anything about this case in particular, but I will note that it's unfortutately not terribly uncommon for Arbs or oversighters to have to place what might be termed "child competence" blocks - that is, as far as child protection, it's not a matter of only age, but a matter of how age interacts with ability to operate safely in an environment like Wikipedia, and when that equation comes out negative, a block may be placed.

As for the IP edit, it certainly appears to me to be block evasion, but this matter might be better referred to Arbcom rather than ANI, since they apparently handled the original block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz incivility, personal attacks, disruption, harassment[edit]

Looks like we have a Rodney King consensus.--regentspark (comment) 20:14, 23 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.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has been disrupting a VPP discussion with tendentious repetition of comments, general incivility, personal attacks, and harassing attacks on unrelated articles created by certain of the commenters. At a minimum, the VPP thread (linked below) should be archived with a clear statement of the very clear consensus, but KW's conduct is really appalling and I think calls for some kind of remedy.

A thread was started at VPP at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links regarding KW's insistence that we should comply with a certain website's TOS by not giving the full URLs for pages, instead only giving the domain name and an ID# of some kind for the particular page. The discussion attracted many other editors, all of whom disagreed with KW that we had any kind of obligation (whether moral or legal) to refrain from giving full URLs or that it was at all useful to just give the website's domain name. So the question that prompted the thread is resolved by a clear consensus.

KW, however, continued both to tendentiously repeat that you can still find the right page without the full URL,[1] and, even worse, to snipe and nitpick at others' comments, often paired with insults,[2] attacking everything from their choice of particular pronouns[3] to my use of scare quotes around "citations" in reference to the mere use of domain names rather than the full URL,[4], to whether a commenter's recommendation that he read WP:OWN was an appropriate response to his repeated use of the phrase "my articles".[5] None of this was a constructive contribution to the discussion at this point, all of it was a completely disproportionate response to what was actually said by others (if not a willful misreading of grievous insults that just weren't there), and it just served to make the discussion more hostile in tone (KW was apparently already feuding with the editor who started the thread from what I could tell).

Even worse, he has been personalizing the disagreement, both in the VPP thread and in unrelated content outside of it. He listed an article at AFD that he had no prior edits to, but which was started by another commenter at the VPP thread; it was speedy kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamelan gong gede. This comment makes it pretty clear that KW targeted it because he thought that the quality of an editor's contributions somehow undermined their disagreement with or criticism of him. He went out of his way to downgrade the assessment of an article, Terry v. Ohio, just because he saw it on my userpage list of articles I had started, and to also offer its purported low quality as somehow undermining my comments at VPP just as he did with the other commenter.[6] (I don't care about the assessment itself, as I didn't grade it and I don't think I've touched the article since I gave it a rough start in 2004 except to revert vandalism; I just question the motive and objectivity behind KW's change of it). He also tried to start a pissing match on my talk page about who had contributed a better article, which I removed without comment.

All of this needs to stop. This apparently is symptomatic of a recurring civility problem with KW, though I don't recall being subject to it in the past. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What disruption? Pigsonthewing (if my memory is correct) added a full url, I reverted and asked for a discussion on the talk page, following the consensus on copyright-infringement's discussion. Postdlf reverted me. You can see what he calls (with dismisive quotes) "'citations'" and "mere use of domain names" by examining that diff.
I thanked editors for repairing the gamelan article, after it had references added, finally. Let us hope somebody cares about the Ohio versus somebody article to fix it (and check for copy vios, as should be done whenever we have one-source articles)...,
Why he and the others got so excited that they started to irrelevantly lecture me on Wikipedia policies---except curiously for WP: Verifiability---is beyond me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I went looking to see if KW had had a previous RFC/U filed for his behavior, and he has at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Albeit a year and a half old, it also indicates these issues. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
At the VP discussion, I have been subjected to "childish", sneering "citation" used on articles I wrote, false accusations of violating WP:ownership made without evidence, and left standing, etc.
Would that Postdlf were concerned with NPA and Civility, when he and his buddies violate those policies.
Please see his reaction to a discussion of WP:Verifiability.
I don't have time to play games with diffs. Editors should look around in the page histories. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about this incident - but if I recall correctly Kiefer was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing not to long ago (like 3 weeks ago)? I must have missed something or its not the guy I was thinking of. Does this problem keep arising?Moxy (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
He was blocked indef by BWilkins back in late December and unblocked an hour later. I would say no block should be issued for this without consensus, as we all know that Kiefer, as is the case with most prominent editors, will otherwise be unblocked fairly quickly. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Could any of you address any of the insults directed towards me in the last week in these threads, e.g., "daft", "childish", accusations of violating WP:Ownership, AGF violations, etc.
Or is this civility and NPA enforcment going to continue to be a one-way street?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through the VP section in question, my suggestion is that you all just let the matter rest. Imo, there is slight evidence of tendentiousness on the part of kiefer.w though I don't think it has wandered out of bounds as yet. But there is also some evidence of baiting, just within the margins of propriety and possibly because of a longer history on this issue, which might account for keifer's tenacity. Thumperward seems to have summarized the discussion adequately and, since there appear to be faults all around, let it go. --regentspark (comment) 19:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Really not sure what the point in this report is... Unnecessary time wasting. Time is precious...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I sure am glad that the shutting down of Wikiquette Assistance didn't result in a rise in incivlity and annoyance complaints here on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 23 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.

Review of an AfD requested[edit]

Content dispute, AfD closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 23 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 an admin take a look here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Cats. If I understand his "rationale" the user nominated the article for AfD because the smaller, fully sourced version is not worthy of an encyclopedia, but the larger, unsourced and promotional version was? I suspect a speedy close may be in order.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 23 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.

User:OKBot is malfunctioning inactive[edit]

Wrong venue. OP directed to correct venue, and has agreed to take this there. Nothing else here needs admin attention. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:45, 23 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.

Just checked the article Wikiquote, and it looks like the last update for the Alexa rank by User:OKBot was on 2 August 2012. This bot is listed as active; however, the last updates for any articles were on 9 September 2012. Other editors have tried to contact the bot owner on 11 December 2012, but the request was archived without a response from the owner. This bot would be very good, if it was working. Maybe someone else can take over the bot? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the header to inactive rather malfunctioning (as it isn't malfunctioning). Very possible, probably worth heading to Wikipedia:Bot_requests ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll post a request there, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:18, 23 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.

WP:NPOV[edit]

Didymus Judas Thomas has been indefinitely blocked by Ironholds. That's all folks! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 24 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 grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

  • Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013
(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here --Guerillero | My Talk 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the article talk page and the section Didymus started on tommorris's talk, I'm not encouraged that Didymus understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work. This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a PR center, nor is it a shouting contest. NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from, all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him. Didymus's repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him. I would support, at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Instead of responding to all of these posts re "WP:NPOV," "Topic ban (Didymus)," & "A sidenote" in one post, I am going to respond to the posts one at a time for ease of reading/discussion.
1. fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to support the above stated opinion that I do not "understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work," That it "isn't a courtroom," "nor is it a PR center," "nor is it a shouting contest."
2. fluffernutter posits that: "NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from..."
3. fluffernutter does not respond to my above grievance.
4. WP:NPOV clearly supersedes WP:CONS because it states: "The principles upon which this 'policy' is based cannot be superseded by other 'policies' or ... 'by editors' consensus'." WP:CONS clearly is an "English Wikipedia 'policy'." There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this"policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. This does "not" mean that WP:CONS is "not important," & fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s ) to show that I do not believe this.
5. fluffernutter goes on to characterize my conduct as: "all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him." I, in return will not characterize fluffernutter's conduct as "complaining very loudly" as it serves no purpose.
6.. fluffernutter implies that I am "repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him," yet provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to show I am "biased."
7. fluffernutter supports "at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was. Thank you very much. 166.205.55.23 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

Topic ban (Didymus)[edit]

User:Didymus Judas Thomas's editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. The consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary. His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS. I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support sounds reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I almost forgot about this until... Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support At the very least. I did the Google search proposed by Tom Morris above, and it's obviously the same person. Seems obsessed by this topic and probably a COI. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. --John (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same. Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them. We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them". Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Is it possible, Nstrauss, that you're misunderstanding what a topic ban is? It's not a block or a technical limitation of Didymus's ability to contribute; it's just a way to redirect him to an area where he doesn't get into so much trouble. Most editors regard a block as significantly more harsh a punishment than a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The evidence suggests not. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I just noticed that Didymus has been editing for less than two months and has worked exclusively on that article. Don't WP:BITE the newbie. A permanent topic ban would probably cause him to leave the project. That may be an appealing prospect to some but it wouldn't serve the editor retention cause. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as an involved editor. This editor has turned this area and the talk page into a near impossible place to edit collaboratively. Learning how to edit Wikipedia in an area outside would likely be a benefit, and also stop the disruption in this area. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. Tom Morris, I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & Tom Morris provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing.
2. Tom Morris, I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [15] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [16] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's [17] [18] and (PDF's) [19][20]
3. Tom Morris postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support.
4. Tom Morris posts: "I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was.
5. After my grievance was blocked I gave Tom Morris the opportunity to respond to it [21] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.40 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013
What's wrong with a temporary topic ban of, say, 30 days? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as why 30 days won't be useful, Nstrauss, let me put it to you this way: read Didymus's contributions to this thread. Do you see any sign, any at all, that he's open to being corrected or that he'll operate or believe any differently 30 days from now, whether he's removed from the topic or not? Or does it sound a whole lot like he's dug in, sure he's right, doesn't plan to change, and in fact plans to go down swinging? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We won't know unless we try. He's never experienced the swift justice of AN/I. :p --Nstrauss (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nstrauss posts: "Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated?"
I agree with Nstrauss. Nstrauss seems to be the only one (of possibly a few) of the Administrators / Experienced Editors up to this point of the discussion who in "good faith" has not gone over the top.
Please "educate" me on WP:NPOV, especially those of you familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6):
"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,". Thank you very much. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013
  • Alexbrn posts: "The evidence suggests not."
Alexbrn, you were the first one who had the opportunity to explain WP:NPOV. Why didn't you "in good faith" do so when you had the opportunity to do so & provide [WP:NPOV]], WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6) support?
"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," references in support of your position? Thank you very much. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013
  • Nstrauss posts: "No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time."
I agree with Nstrauss: ""Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. "
I somewhat agree with Nstrauss. I'm a slightly clueless NPOV pusher because up to this point no volunteer editor, experienced editor, or administrator has in "goof faith" addressed the grievance issue & provided any example of WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6).
Guerillero; who blocked my editor grievance, was given the opportunity to respond: [22]
  • Tarc, posted on Guerillero's Talk page, & was given the opportunity to respond. (Content # 5) [23]
Tarc posted: “The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win.
Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.
Here, the two sides are not equal.
We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.
WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table".
If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen."
Tarc used quotes on some statements, so I thought WP:NPOV was being cited / referenced, so I questioned it.
Tarc, I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV.
Exactly where are those quotes from on WP?
Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one.
However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view."
"This page in a nutshell:"
"Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias."
"This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."
"As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."
WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by sources."
[WP:NPOV]] "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6). "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," references." Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013lj

I object to the below characterization as being biased & personal opinion. Thank you. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Unreadable copy/paste rehashing of numerous comments by multiple other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Guerillero posts: "Support sounds reasonable". Guerillero was given the opportunity to respond to my grievance after it was blocked, [24] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.28 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013
  • fluffernutter posts: "Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area."
1. I take it, fluffernutter, in "good faith," might not have read my grievance since fluffernutter requested that I post my grievance though my grievance was clear from the difs I provided (Content # 20.) [25]
2. fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" does not recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [26]
3. fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" claims COI, but provides no proof of WP:COI Thank you very much. 166.205.55.35 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013
  • Seb az86556 posts: "I almost forgot about this until... Support"
1. Seb az86556 posted, I take it in "good faith:". "Wrong venue; use dispute resolution... though this was an editor grievance (CONTENT # 20) [27] and WP:DR resources indicated: "This is not a place to report editor behavior or other conduct related issues..." "For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard."
2. I had already filed a separate action on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard re the Article, which was ignored. [28] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.28 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 2/22/2013
  • 1. Dave Dial indicates "probably a COI" but provides no proof of WP:COI.
2. Dave Dial, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my User Talk page WP:COI statement [29] at the bottom.
3. Dave Dial, I take it, in "good faith," doesn't recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [30]
  • John posts: "Support per all above."
1. John, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my posts not exactly complementary to SRB on google.
2. John, I take it, in "good faith," doesn't recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [31]
3. John, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my User Talk page WP:COI statement [32] at the bottom.
4. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris' postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support by John.
5. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris' I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [33] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [34] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's) [35] [36] and (PDF's) [37] [38]
6. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris', I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & John provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talkcontribs) 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Fluffiernutter posts: "Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute."
Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" & civility, characterizes my conduct as "badgering" but provides no support for such a claim. [39] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013
  • Nstrauss posts: "(Non-administrator observation) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no?"
I think some individuals on here are making a mountain out of a molehill as I have stated: "I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013
  • Nstrauss posts: "(Non-administrator observation) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here?"
No, this is "not" what we have here, as if that was the case any of the numerous editors acting as gatekeepers for the Article had every opportunity to raise this issue since I started posting 12/2/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talkcontribs) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • fluffernutter posts: "Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same."
fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" provides no proof of what is meant by "disruption," & cites no WP policy in support, so that this claim can be addressed in "good faith."
Disruptive editing?
Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?
Disruptive user?
DisruptTalk?
I'm not sure how fluffernutter expects generic statements to be responded to in " good faith."
Nor am I sure how fluffernutter expects WP:NPOV; which is the grievance subject, to be discussed in "good faith" when fluffernutter does not provide an opinion of what WP:NPOV means.
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
If "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" does not mean what it says, what does it mean?
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
What is "neutral point of view" if it's not what it says it is?
"This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
What does "nonnegotiable" mean if it's not what it says it means?
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies."
What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as part if the "three core content policies?"
"The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".
What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as "[t]he other two?"
"These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."
What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS?
"Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."
"The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
What "other policies" is this referring to if its not referring to WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS ?
What does "cannot be superseded" "by editors' consensus" mean?
If no Administrator or Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you?
  • fluffernutter posts: "Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them."
fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" believes that after my editor grievance was blocked, that I was advised it had been unblocked, yet provides no proof of this & again provides no proof of "badgering" or what it is.
  • Fluffernutter posts: "We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them."
Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" provides no example.
Fluffernutter posts: "Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges.
Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith," does not indicate where there has been any "informal discussions" of my editor grievance.
Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith," has not discussed: WP: NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
What does "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" mean?
What sides? Only your side? Only the side you agree with?
If no Administrator or Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you?
Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013
  • Nstrauss posts: "There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. "
I note that no post that I have read up to this point from an Administrator or Expert Editor has mentioned anything in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial WP:NPOVT in support of the position that has been posited re WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2003
  • Alexbrn posts: "(Non-administrator observation) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn"
Alexbrn, I take it, in "good faith," you are able to answer the below questions re WP:NPOV, which is the grievance subject?
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
If "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" does not mean what it says, what does it mean?
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
What is "neutral point of view" if it's not what it says it is?
"This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
What does "nonnegotiable" mean if it's not what it says it means?
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies."
What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as part if the "three core content policies?"
"The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".
What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as "[t]he other two?"
"These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."
What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS?
"Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."
"The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
What "other policies" is this referring to if its not referring to WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS?
What does "cannot be superseded" "by editors' consensus" mean?
WP: NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
What does "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" mean?
What sides? Only your side?
Can you cite anything in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial WP:NPOVT in support of the position that has been posited re WP:NPOV ?
If you , no Administrator or no Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you?
How am I to accept you are acting in "good faith" if you are unable to explain this so that I can in "good faith" apply the policy?
This is not a threat but a fact. If I proceed to WP:M mediation or WP:AP arbitration, this will be the issue. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

A sidenote[edit]

In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus), is anyone interested in teasing out what's going on in the history of User:Houseac, where a couple of SPAs and the aforementioned IP/Didymus have been active? I can't find a connection between the subject of that fake article and the clinic Didymus was so interested in. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what's going on there. I'd love to know though. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that the IP appears to belong to a wireless (mobile phone) company, it's entirely possible the two users have nothing to do with each other other than using the same cell network. It's not impossible that there's a connection, but the confluence of IPs doesn't necessarily show much of anything, since wireless IPs tend to be dynamic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Drmies posts: "In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus)."
Drmies, after looking at the page, I have no idea what you are referring to re: "identifying themselves as your client Didymus)." Thank you. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Another sidenote[edit]

I'm leaning towards having to seriously look at WP:CIR in this instance... Didymus, can you be more concise and less utterly incomprehensible here? Pretty please? — foxj 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no horse in this race at all, despite this guy thinking that I do. What happened is that Guerillero quoted a post of mine concerning NPOV during the course of a discussion on his (Guerillero's) talk page. This guy seems to interpret this as if I had directly participated in the discussion, and is now getting all ronery that my direct quote about turkeys and Thanksgiving tables cannot be found on any WP:* policy page. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • fox, re your "Didymus, can you be more concise and less utterly incomprehensible here?"
I am quoting directly from WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, & the "History of NOPV."
If you find that "utterly incomprehensible," than unfortunately I can't help you if you don't understand it.
"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," [WP:NPOV]] "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6). Thank you very much. 166.205.55.24 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013
You need not indent so often. You need not finish all of your statements with "thank you very much" as though you are scanning my shopping at a grocery store. You need not write out your name after typing ~~~~. Taking this advice will allow others to communicate with you much more clearly. If you cannot communicate with others clearly - something that is of utmost importance to a project like this - then I can't see any way forward here. — foxj 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Tarc, no, it is obvious that I question the statements of yours in quotes. I guess G should not have just copy/pasted your post onto the User Talk page without removing your name. Thanks. 166.205.55.24 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Blocked[edit]

Ironholds has indef-blocked User:Didymus Judas Thomas under WP:COMPETENCE, and also blocked 166.205.55.24 short-term under same. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to harp on this but was that really the appropriate remedy? His comments were really, really hard to read and annoying but there were nuggets of logic embedded in them. Would not a temporary ban/block plus a stern education (along the lines of Foxj's comment) have done the trick? Or putting him in mandatory WP:AAU or somesuch? Aside from the fact that if editors are going to be indeffed for WP:CIR then perhaps WP:CIR should be promoted to policy status... or at least guideline status... --Nstrauss (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, people appear to have been talking to him for days. The response is generally 'YOU ARE WRONG AND HERE IS AN ESSAY AS TO WHY'. It's nothing to do with how annoying his comments are; it's to do with the fact that every comment is a refusal to accept why his contributions are problematic. That's pretty good evidence that mentoring wouldn't work; it requires the willingness to confront an issue and move on from it. That's the competence he lacks. Ironholds (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I feel bad for the guy but I also feed bad for the folks who've battled him for the last 2 months. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:22, 24 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 addresses 116.202.144.148, 116.202.125.149 indulges in vandalism[edit]

An unregistered user from IP address 116.202.144.148 indulges in vandalising wikipedia Kochi page which contains information about Kochi city, urban agglomeration, wider metropolitan area and suburbs. The user was warned that what he is doing is contrary to the content and purpose of the page. On being warned, the user threatens to change the whole page in order to suit his designs. To quote the reported user

"(Article is not about Kochi UA. but Kochi city There is another article on Kochi UA. If there are other irrelevant information, they should be deleted as well.)"

In order to avoid the three revert rule the reported user used another IP 116.202.125.149 and continued vandalism. Prathambhu (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Request Urgent Admin intervention to block the IPs and restore information on Kochi pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathambhu (talkcontribs) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody violated WP:3RR. You have both reverted the page one time. This just looks like assuming bad faith. Prathambhu created the first IP's talk page with a level 2 vandalism warning, which was inappropriate, then followed with vandalism level 3 8 minutes later, even though no further edits had taken place on Kochi. When the other user reverted the reversion under another IP (I think it's safe to assume they're the same person), Prathambhu gave both IPs level 4 warnings, then less than 30 minutes later, decided that wasn't enough, and took it straight to AN/I. No talk page discussion was ever opened, and this isn't even the first time Prathambhu has been involved in this exact content dispute; another editor wanted to make the same changes to the article back in 2009.
Content issues aside, the IP user tried to make several edits in good faith. Prathambhu, meanwhile, seems to have no concept of what vandalism actually means and how vandalism templates should be used. I would suggest he educate himself further, and perhaps consider expanding his scope a little more beyond Kochi and related articles. I don't think this warrants a block for anybody, as even Prathambhu didn't seem to be editing in bad faith, and doesn't appear to have been admonished for this behavior in the past. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
False charge by Prathambhu. To quote the first paragraph of the Kochi page,
" The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is the most densely populated city in the state and is part of an extended metropolitan region (pop. 2.1 million), which is the largest urban agglomeration in Kerala. Kochi city is also a part of Greater Cochin region[6][7] and is classified as a B-1 grade city[8] by the Government of India, making it the highest graded city in the state".
I had also checked the discussions Talk:Kochi, India and found that the consensus was that the article is about the city not the UA. From this it is pretty clear that the article is about the Kochi and not about the Kochi UA or the metropolitan area. Some of the information added in the page are for the UA of Kochi, and should be entered in the Kochi metropolitan area. Quoting from the page Kochi metropolitan area,
"This article is about the urban agglomeration of Kochi. For the city of Kochi, see Kochi ". And again,
"The Urban Agglomeration (UA) of Kochi (Malayalam: കൊച്ചി [Kocci]; formerly known as Cochin) is a part of the Greater Cochin region and the largest urban agglomeration in the Indian state of Kerala."
So I hope it might be clear to you by now, which is the page on the Urban Agglomeration and which is the page on the city. I merely removed these irrelevant information's from the page. Aluva is a separate municipality from Kochi and a part of the metropolitan area but it is not part of the Kochi city which has a population of 601,574. So please allow me to remove these irrelevant information from the page. Kolenchery is a small town within a Panchayat which is outside the purview of both Kochi city, GCDA and Kochi metropolitan area. I didn't change the IP. I'm using a shared IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.91.114 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of content issues in most cases should remain on the article talk page. This thread is about vandalism by an IP user, and as soon as it can be verified or safely assumed that Prathambhu at least has read it, I would consider it resolved. —Rutebega (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for administrator intervention. The unregistered user reported for vandalism has returned with another IP 180.215.44.110, despite being given clear reason, supported with documents as evidence, by another user. He has reverted and edited out the factual information with the intention of removing important information on Kochi page. Prathambhu (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


The user reported for repeated vandalism has one more IP : 58.68.91.114. He brings his own interpretations to continue vandalism and edit out important information like list of Medical Schools in the Kochi region from Kochi page, which would deny important information to people looking for it. Prathambhu (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have read the discussion, I have officially warned you for misuse of warning templates. Please gain a better understanding of what vandalism is before warning users in the future, and endeavor to assume good faith. Unless anybody thinks admin action is necessary, I'd say we're done here. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved

Constant article vandalism by User:NotHelpingMatters in Futanari[edit]

I reverted the edits from User:NotHelpingMatters and his corresponding IPs 70.112.2.185, 67.168.249.185 multiple times already and asked him to discuss matters at the discussion page, because his changes introduced many errors (see discussion page, a lonely conversation with myself), leading to a more and more destroyed article. I hoped that he would seek out the discussion page, but i can only guess that his goal is to get attention and to purge the articles illustration, starting with his first edit, along with personal attacks like: Grow the hell up, you simpering creep. Nobody wants to look at your shitty porn art. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not engaging in vandalism. I am attempting to restore the article in order to make it have a more professional tone, to remove bias by previous editors, to allow for it to be safely browsed by those who do not wish to see porn images at the top of articles that do not need them. Niabot's contributions have been consistently biased, with attempts to inflate the cultural importance of the subject, attempts to define needless sub-categories of the topic, attempts to inject personal bias such as calling certain terms for the phenomenon vulgar and offensive, which is both not true and quite honestly shows an emotional over-investment in the topic's perception by others. He has repeatedly referred to my attempts to remove the needless and graphic illustration as vandalism. Additionally, I am not the first person to attempt to reclaim the article from Niabot's harmful and over-enthusiastic edits, as the logs for the article clearly show. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Futanari&offset=&limit=500&action=history . The image at the top of the article, which he insists on including, is one that he drew himself. It is graphic, unneeded, poorly made, and damages the article by its presence. I implore the moderators to remove Niabot's ability to edit this article, as his edits have been consistently unprofessional, biased, and harmful to the intended purpose of the page as an entry in a neutral online encyclopedia. - NotHelpingMatters (Talk)

If "restoring" would mean to change sentences to a different meaning, that is not supported by the sources and to destroy the references, while ignoring to discuss the issues, then i could agree with your edits. But your edits introduce many false facts and the smooth, but vague wording doesn't help the reader if the facts get wrong. I never defined any subcategories and i only called terms vulgar or offensive that source [Katrien 2007] stated to be seen as vulgar and offensive in the eyes of the fan community. I see your wording and accusations as another personal attack. I wrote the German futanari article which was assessed to be an quality article. Your edits only show that you never tried to read any of the sources and that you are not familiar with the terms at all. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
NHM, please include links to your user page and talk page in your signature. In addition, there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia, only admins. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reverts by IP[edit]

Editor warned. m.o.p 05:25, 24 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.

A user 177.192.37.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made a series of unexplained edits and reverts in the GULAG page: [40], [41], [42], [43]. An advice to self revert has been ignored by him. May I ask admins to temporarily semiprotect the article?
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Left a note here asking the editor to avoid changing the article further, and pointing them to the talk page. I don't believe there's any reason to protect/block yet. m.o.p 00:00, 24 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.

User:Larry[edit]

If he wants the name, he can WP:USURP it. If he doesn't, we shouldn't randomly block 'because we can'. Either way, this isn't an AN/I matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 24 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.

Registered in 2007 or earlier and no edits. I'd like it blocked so it can be a redirect to User:Larry Sanger per prescient of User:Jimbo. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If LS wants to doppleganger the name, he can WP:USURP. NE Ent 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't block accounts due to disuse. However, you could create the page User:Larry and put {{distinguish|User:Larry Sanger}} on it if you really wanted to. 28bytes (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously we don't, but this seems like a case of WP:IAR and WP:UCS to me. This account has never edited, I seriously doubt whoever this "Larry" is is going to miss the account. A redirect would be far more useful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I seriously doubt Larry Sanger needs it, and short of a request from him there's no valid reason to do this. Blocking shouldn't be taken so lightly. —Rutebega (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Why would this be important or worthwhile? Should I demand that User:Ten be handed over to me, because it's too much trouble for people to type out my full handle? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 24 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 harassment[edit]

This IP is harassing me for days now. Knows all about my user account. It could be the guy that got his user account blocked because of me.

[44], [45], [46].

I doubt he will stop even if this IP is blocked. But it's annoying considering he is doing this every month for few days in a row, writing on other users' talk pages about me etc. --Wüstenfuchs 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an admin to read my talk page where IP want's my account blocked at any cost and represents himself as a "legion" that "doesn't forgive or forget." --Wüstenfuchs 16:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest page protection. Blackmane (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours for this edit: it is unacceptable. I've also reverted them on Flag of Syria where they falsely claimed a talk page consensus. On that note, a talk page consensus is necessary for that issue: there is some talk in the archive of that talk page but it is old and didn't really lead anywhere. An RfC might be an option though, of course, the situation is in flux--however, that shouldn't mean that a temporary agreement cannot be reached. If I remember correctly there was a suggestion in the archive that a second flag could be mentioned but not in the infobox, a suggestion that sounded reasonable and had some support. I am not prepared to protect Wustenfuchs's talk page yet, and I note (WP:BOOMERANG invites research) that Wustenfuchs has a habit of edit-warring, a habit they would do well to get rid of once and for all. Let's see what the future brings re:IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Blackmane: This isn't vandalism, and it doesn't meet the recommended criteria for protection on WP:SEMI. Additionally, Wüstenfuchs, you're talking about two different IPs. They're close enough that there's a good chance they're the same person, but they are nevertheless different. 92.40.254.14 has been blocked by Drmies for harassment already. That's the "We are legion" kid. 92.40.254.201 has not been blocked, and he was the one in the second and third diffs you linked. Just seemed worth mentioning. —Rutebega (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Both 92.40.254.201 and 92.40.254.14 are from the same range: 92.40.252.0/22 (geolocates to London). Some ISPs assign a new IP every time the subscriber logs on. Another possibility is the person is editing from a mobile device and is assigned a new IP every time they enter the range of a new cell phone tower. This tool can be used to calculate ranges. -- Dianna (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Wüstenfuchs, I will add your userpage to my watch-list for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Rutebaga, I blocked the most recent one. It makes little sense to block the earlier ones, as Dianna's comment suggests it's outdated. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Ok, I didn't know that (IP addresses and how they work mystify me frequently) but I guess now I know. The WHOIS says it's a "mobile broadband service," so I bet it's somebody on a smartphone. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sigh, they're back at Flag of Syria; I've reverted and semi-protected for a month. Who knows what flag flies over Damascus then. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe a cases were made in the past(correct me if I'm wrong) for a user's page to be protected, if requested, but that user would normally then provide a page for IP's to post messages. Again, I may entirely be mistaken. Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You're not mistaken, but semi-protecting a user talk page is something that is not done quickly. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Protection_of_user_pages, last sentence. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I find this highly amusing. That is all.
        • Ah, thanks for pointing that bit out. Must have skimmed past that bit. Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus[edit]

The discussion has slowed down significantly, and has been open for some time now. Consensus appears to be that the comments made by YRC are in direct contravention to the restrictions that they agreed to. As such, they were fully aware of the limits and scope of the restriction. By YRC's own comments, they were aware of their own violation, but even at the 11th hour they have argued about being "ganged up on" as opposed to the appropriateness of their comments. Although there has been some discussion about baiting/context, this does not have sufficient support at this time to sway the argument - every human being is responsible for their own actions - and that also means their own clicking of the "SUBMIT" button. As consensus is that a violation of their conditions/restrictions has occurred, and YRC was aware of the repercussion of a violation, there is no choice but to implement the site ban for User:Youreallycan from the English Wikipedia. Although this site ban is formally indefinite, it can be appealed either to WP:BASC, or via the community - although I would highly suggest such an appeal not occur for a significant period of time. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 24 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.

Admin reverted my closure, my closure diff was to reduce disruption but since User:Maunus's revert of my closure he has done nothing but raise disruption - it has been reclosed quite rapidly with a similar rationale - diff, edit summary, undo closing by involved editor YRC - this when clearly his following comments show he is overly involved in regards to me - then he contained the discussion which was not about me, and focused on me, diff he then left this post on my userpage, Your double standards are extreme. You style yourself as the BLP knight in shining armor, defending BLP articles with editwarring and personal attacks... except when the living persons are Muslims. You speculate that other people are just defending the Pakistani's right not to be painted as a nation of rapists because they are themselves pakistanis. And when you're called out you complain that people are attacking you. That is despicable behavior that frankly you should be punished for. I am sorry that I ended up not recommending a community ban in your rfc/u. I hope a new one is coming up soon so we can finally get wikipedia rid of your bigoted disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)diff, which I regarded as a personal attack, I warned him as such on his userpage, he immediately deleted it - and has continued with the personal attacking with the latest comment, "I know thats how you work. You attack others and when they give you back you whimper like a baby and say please dont post to my page. If you ever make a bigoted attack on me again I will have you community banned" - these are not the actions of a user of WP:Admin standards - Can he be told to back off and leave me alone and stop with the personal attacks please. - Youreallycan 22:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Youreallycan was involved because he closed a thread about possible racism against Pakistani muslims in which I was participating after an exchange we had yesterday in which he made a personal attack against me arguing that my opinion could be discounted because I was probably a Pakistani muslim. He should not have closed a thread about Pakistani muslims in which I was participating on that background. [47][48]
  • WP:NPA Defines a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack."

What I posted at YRC's talkpage was not a personal attack under the definition of WP:NPA it was a commentary about his editing based on publicly available evidence from his editing history. I did call him a bigot and a hypocrite and I stand by that characterization of his editing, but admit I should probably refrain from that in general, I do believe that his conduct which is clear baiting justifies it and that he has no right to demand civilty from anyone untill he begins acting civilly himself. I don't need to back off and leave you alone. You initiated the engagement, and the two last comments were in response to your illegitimate posts to my talkpage. If you stay off my talkpage and don't driveby close discussions in which I participate I am fully prepared never to talk to you again. It would indeed be a pleasure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    • you missed to mention your comment - [And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?User:Maunus - And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?·ʍaunus - diff you missed to mention this one - Youreallycan 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I selfreverted that personal attack immediately - whereas yuo not only repeated but actively defended yours while being under a strict civilty probation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Maunus - you've been here for a while, you know the rules. Edits like this, and comments like this, are unnaceptable. I mean, you purposely edited that first page an additional time just to insert your jab. I understand that things can get heated in a dispute, but things like this do nothing to improve the situation. Please make sure you don't let your judgement lapse next time, and keep a cool head.
YouReallyCan - I can't say you've done much better. Hounding users over their ethnicity is nothing short of rude. You can hold whatever worldly notions you have - there are no rules about having bias - but do not let your bias influence how you interact with the project.
I think the safest option here is to have you both avoid interaction with each other. Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself.
I hope this is a fair resolution for both of you. If not, let me know and we'll work on something else. m.o.p 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would also like to direct the community's attention to the fact that Youreallycan is currently under sanctions including aone revert restriction and a strict civility parole. I do believe that his personal attacks against me in which he speculates about my ethnicity and argues that I am ethnically motivated for my opinion and therefore can be discounted are in violation of those sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Happy to agree to and abide by Master of Puppets resolution, Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself. - Youreallycan 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not enough. Youreallycan has not a single time suggested that he understands that speculating about other editors ethnicity or suggesting that it motivated their opinions is a personal attack. He is under a strict civilty probation and needs to be able to show that he understands this basic policy. I request that either he make an explicit apology showing that he realizes that his behavior was unacceptable or he is permanently blocked as per his standing sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • - the thread is here - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derby_sex_gang I don't see anything worthy of an apology, nothing at all compared to User:Maunus's comments today - and nothing worthy of a permanent block under my self agreed civility conditions - Youreallycan 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Your restruictions were selfagreed because the alternative was an instantaneous community ban. Since you refuse to apologize or even to recognize that your comments werre against WP:NPA the csommunity will have to decide whether this constitutes a breach of your sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I am really not sure about you Admin status, the alternative was not an instantaneous community ban at all - nonsense statement from you Youreallycan 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Youreally can is subject to a civility parole until April 16, 2013 as detailed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan. The comment, "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," [The conduct here] is incompatible with the promise Youreallycan made there. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I said that out of rage in response to his repeated attacks and immediately selfreverted it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Lulz, that's a quote from Maunus, not YRC. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL Mathsci as you said to me the other day, - go away and stop trolling Mathci - that comment was made by the other guy - "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," User:Maunus - haha - Youreallycan 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: (ec) How can reasonable administrators sit back and allow their fellows to display such arrogance, outright incivility and a blatantly sycophantic defence, irrespective of the provocation? All this and similar kinds of administrative behaviour must stop --Senra (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The formatting problem was corrected here.[50] Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have resigned my tools with a note that the resignation should be considered "under a cloud". My conduct was unbecoming of an administrators, who should be expected to respond better even to blatant incivility and person attacks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Youreallycan breach his "strict civilty probation?[edit]

At his Rfc/U User;Yuoreallycan agreed that he be put on a strict civility probation untill april 16th 2013, and that the sanction in case of a breach would be a full site ban. WP:NPA Defines a personal attack as: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack." Holding this in mind I ask the community whether these edits [51][52] whic Youreallycan does not consider a personal attack nor worthy of an apology constitute a breach of that civilty restriction that would merit the sanctions being enacted?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • "You are simply being defensive because you are a Pakistani Muslim " (Youreallycan)
  • "Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK " (Youreallycan)
Are these comments that a person on a strict civility probation should be saying?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Holding your conduct in this in mind, no. Arkon (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I recognize that I am not blameless, but I have recognized and selfreverted when I've crossed the line and my incivilty was in frustration over these comments by Youreallycan. To my recollection when I became an admin I did not sign a contract that said I should quietly tolerate being subjected to racist personal attacks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A racist personal attack? Please post the diff - Youreallycan 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting that opinions are caused by cultural, racial or religous background and that opinions of certain groups are apriori invalid is the very definition of a racism. Diffs and quotes above. Just as it would be racist to say "you are just being defensive because you are black/jewish/redhaired/indigenous".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • - you define you bias of rasicism as you want - however it always needs to be taken in context — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talkcontribs)
YRC very much has "history" in declaring that the views of specific groups of people are inhrenetly invalid in relation to certain subjects - see Talk:Melanie Phillips#Hatchet job. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether it is a racist personal attack or not, it is not civil, and violated the civility parole. GregJackP Boomer! 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • sooner or later, arbcom is gonna have to deal with the YRC issues. — Ched :  ?  04:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
(I have undone NE Ent's closure of this thread. YRC is under a strict civility parole, and only admins can decide if he's broken it in this instance. Ent's opinion (or anyone else's) can certainly be posted here to influence an admin's decision, but he's in no position to decide that the issue is moot and should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC))
  • Yes, YRC's conduct here [53] is clearly offensive and unacceptable, and a typical example of the pattern of aggressively jumping into accusations against other editors that has been the issue with YRC for so long. I clearly see this as a relapse into the type of behaviour he was told to stop. Fut.Perf. 07:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it was uncivil. Only a committed YRC ally could see it as not uncivil. Maunus's post was unwise, but he/she is not on a restriction (and he retracted it), and in any event I hope we don't see people arguing that the one excuses the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • YRC's comments were uncivil and provocative. After being trouted by Kim Dent-Brown in the clousre of the previous thread, YRC proceeded to post warnings on Maunus' talk page. He then opened this new thread, essentially challenging the closure of the previous thread. Not good. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes and YRC is obviously in breach of his civility probation. This has been a long-term pattern with YRC/Off2RioRob and his long block record and assorted drama-fests, including the aforementioned lengthy Rfc/U, document that undisputable fact. Now this latest mess, a waste of yet more editor hours. YRC needs to be indeffed and formally banned by the community for good. Let enough be enough, finally. Jusdafax 09:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sigh - I agree that that was incredibly uncivil, a breach of his probation, and this needs sorting once and for all. I see no other alternative but an indef. GiantSnowman 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per User_talk:Rschen7754#Working_for_blocked_contributors and per a repeated pattern of incivility - this needs to be put to an end. --Rschen7754 09:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support YRC's comments clearly violated WP:CIVIL, and the RFCU clearly mandated a site ban if the civility parole was breached. Regrettably, there's only one obvious course of action. Yunshui  09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with a wish that YRC had not thrown this boomerang. And a reluctance to be seen as in any way defending an admin (Maunus) while castigating YRC. But as has been pointed out, Maunus has self-reverted the entirely unacceptable edits s/he made, is not under any kind of probation, did not use any admin tools in this spat and does not have YRC's record of disruption. Had YRC not impulsively opened this thread minutes after the last one was closed, I certainly wouldn't be opening one myself and asking for his banning. But he did open this thread and now must live with the consequences. For the record, Maunus please don't ever again respond to baiting like you did there. If I see a similar response in future I'm likely to block in the same way as I would for any editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

*Support I really like YRC but they have been hoist by their own petard here, twice. The civility parole was their own idea, and nobody forced them to raise this matter here. I am troubled by this especially because there was considerable other incivility in the thread besides YRC's, but I suppose two wrongs do not make a right. Sigh. --John (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I have struck my previous comment. The mistake was a serious one but the user as said he will not do it again. I am minded to give a last chance here. --John (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Does it really exceed the latest, apparently acceptable benchmark for a PA, namely "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" unapologetically defended on the basis of the editor concerned being easily provoked and "not reacting well to bullies" [54]. That was an Admin. Maybe different considerations apply to different editors. Leaky Caldron 10:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support That was the last straw, he's had enough rope, etc. Leaky, it doesn't really matter if it exceeds or doesn't exceed something else. YRC broke his restriction. Different considerations to apply in practice to other editors, we know that and it isn't a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
off-topic discussion Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • That wasn't a personal attack, silly! It was an "Oopsie!" Doc talk 10:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    LC, Beeblebrox's comment was completely unacceptable and personally I would have supported a short civility block; however that is a different matter. We are currently discussing the conduct of YRC; feel free to raise Beeblebrox's conduct as a new section if you believe it warrants it. GiantSnowman 10:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Beeblebrox wasn't under a civility parole, which makes a big difference. Honestly, if there is another solution other than a site ban for YRC I am keen to hear it. --John (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    @GS. You are an Admin., you could issue a civility block. As it stands he has run rings around a bunch of Admins. by insisting the discussion is over and not even received a warning. He can now abuse editors with impunity whenever he is annoyed by someone on his talk page, which he seems to think is exempt from NPA policy. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Blocking a fellow admin will - unfortunately - always lead to drama; even more so with civility blocks. There needs to be strong consensus for that kind of action. As I've said, if you wish to discuss Beeblebrox's behaviour/attitude then feel free to do so - personally I think it will achieve little and merely increase drama. GiantSnowman 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's on the edge of civility, however there is much worse things going on here then this. I would suggest a short wiki break for YRC but not a full blown site ban. I think we would lose way more then we would gain in banning him, he is very diligent in applying BLP policies and we all make mistakes such as mentioned above about the admin who called someone a petty facist idiot. Lets not let the lynch everyone atmosphere get ahold of us and instead ask for a disengagement. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps YRC's 20th (or is it 21st?) short block will really teach him the community means business this time. Let's forget about his strict self-proposed probation conditions, the latest "last chance," while we are at it. Jusdafax 14:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Baiting from a sysop is ill-advised, and the "incivility" was of a level that was clearly deliberately provoked in this instance. Any block or ban should apply precisely equally to both parties or to neither. Your pick. Collect (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Maunus was not under strict sanctions. GiantSnowman 14:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Note ArbCom positions thereon given below - there is no Wikipedia baiting licence for any administrator or for any editor for that matter. Collect (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
What entrapment? At what point did I bait YRC into discounting my opinion because I am probably a Pakistani Muslim? If anyone baited it was YRC.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
AS far as I can see, it began with this comment from you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see how that may look like baiting, but it is adressed to the fact that YRC was vociferously touting BLP policy in the thread immediately above this one arguing but in this thread he thinks it is ok to label unconvicted named individuals and their entire ethnic community as rapists. I am pointing out that clear double standard of argumentation. It did serve to personalize the diaspute I acknowledge. But in this case it is clear that certain inviduals enforce policy selectively and it needed to be pointed out that his argument was based in bias. In anycase I don't think it excuses his subsequent behavior anymore than his behavior excuses mine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
However you chose a poor way to point out this double standard. I wouldn't have responded to the baiting the way YRC did, but no one should be shocked (including you) at his response.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I have taken responsibility for my actions, now YRC needs to take responsibility for his.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
So then, you're actually negating Leaky's argument above - because someone was baited it's ok? No - we as human beings are fully responsible for our own behaviour. We don't simply fight or flight ... we have the power of thought that allows us to choose our reaction based on the situation and self-set criteria (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seriously. It was a clearly racist remark without any redeeming qualities. And I really have a hard time finding "baiting" or "entrapment" there - the remarks were unacceptable under any circumstances. If this necessarily needs to lead to a site ban, or only to a noticeable block (say 4 weeks) may be open to debate. But that it needs to be sanctioned is clear to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only did Maunus start out with very clear incivilty, the comment from YRC was not uncivil in context. Asking if someone has some personal connection to a subject when that person is reacting as Maunus did is not uncivil. If Maunus were a Pakistani Muslim it would provide an understandable reason for such an emotional reaction on the subject. That isn't uncivil to suggest as a possible explanation, and it is definitely not racist.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That suggestion takes all meaning and content out of the terms racism and ciivility. Under that understanding it would for example not be uncivil to discount someone's opinion about the holocaust because its "Just because they're Jewish"()as has happened in the past in a case such as this:[55].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Bias, of any kind, should be taken into consideration when weighing someone's opinion. A person's ethnic and cultural identity does come into play when discussing subjects that concern bigotry and perceptions of bigotry. When a white person says to an African-American tax man that "you people are all just taking my money" the tax man may take that as racist, when the white person is just angry about taxes. Context matters and in this case YRC was suggesting that your emotional reaction to his comments on the subject were a result of a personal bias. You took it the wrong way and started getting combative. Had you just started out by addressing the subject, rather than commenting on YRC's "ethics" then we wouldn't be here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree very strongly that it is ever civil to base one's argumentation on knowledge about ethnic, national, cultural or religious background. Editors should be judged on their actions and arguments on their merits. The "you people are all taking my money" is racist not because the person who says it is white, but because the statement generalizes about a group of "you people". That is what YRC did and what makes his comment unacceptable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support If this isn't incivility, I'm not sure what is. Both users are at fault, but this kind of thing is utterly unacceptable. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly Support that this was a violation. I honestly believe that YRC has been working his butt off to keep on the right side of the line since his RfC, but sometimes it seems like the gears just slip without him being able to stop them, and this is one of those times. He's on a strict civility parole, and he's gone WAY over the line with the behavior we're discussing now. Manus screwed up too, but the other party screwing up doesn't give leave for YRC to go off the rails, especially because he knows - he is so, so aware - that this behavior isn't kosher. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) ETA, since the heading on this section makes things fuzzy: given that this was a blatant violation of the conditions YRC agreed to, I (grumpily) agree that an indef ban is really the only option open to us. YRC tries incredibly hard to do as he's promised, for which I compliment and respect him, but it seems like it's just not enough, and we're going to keep getting cases like this unless he's made to step away. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Jusdafax. Youreallycan is disruptive editor and should be banned. Enough is enough.--В и к и T 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't find the "he was baited/provoked" argument persuasive, as my opinion is that YRC often behaves in the same way. Someone who likes to be provocative may have been provoked, but I do consider casting aspersions of racial bias to be a violation of the restriction YRC himself agreed to. Manus has evidently resigned the tools as a result of his actions. There is no reason why we should excuse YRC's. Resolute 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The baited argument isn't at all convincing. YRC has quite clearly violated his restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - ban both or none under these circumstances, quite simple in the end. --Nouniquenames 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Change to weak support. --Nouniquenames 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Banning a non-sockmaster is unpleasant, but these probations are meaningless if not enforced. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 17:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Xe violated civility parole, but no ban or other sanctions. Being baited isn't good, Manus had equally bad behavior here and is basically getting off scot-free after using his "I'm an admin get out of jail free card". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Except for the fact that he handed in the admin bit. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 17:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Being de-sysoped and is roughly equivalent to being indef banned. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support per FLuffernutter and Observation #3. KillerChihuahua 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Fluffernutter. That the user is in violation appears undisputed; if anyone wants to make proposals about others with diffs and relevant arguments, fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - he did. Oppose any action. If Admins can leave messages telling editors to "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" with no warning given and evidence is redacted by an Arbcom member I see no reason why YRC should be singled out for banning, regardless what sanction he has breached. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The admin gave up his position as an admin. Right now, YRC is the one getting away with it. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Tough. The Admin I'm talking about didn't. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. The other admin was blocked temporarily though. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
You don't research too well do you? He was blocked because his outburst was thought to indicate his account had been compromised. To date no action relating to the "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" comment has been taken, with Admins tripping over themselves to avoid taking action. Leaky Caldron 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I was very well aware of what the block was for. If you think Beeblebrox should face discipline, no one is stopping you from opening a thread for that purpose. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. If you insist that one mistake (in your view, but granted for the sake of argument) means that we cannot take any actions anymore, you really want to have no system of enforcement in place. Humans are not perfect. Neither are human-designed systems. If you claim that we cannot tolerate any errors, I have a hard time taking that position serious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Sanctions are intended to prevent disruption, not to punish editors who have offended someone with a less-than-tactful question in the face of personal attacks. Wikipedia is not the place for lynch mobs and hit squads. Right now the only source of disruption I see are editors relentlessly clinging to a desire to get their pound of flesh, or uphold DA RULZ (as they interpret them), rather than letting the matter die peacefully.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, regrettably. YRC has been around the AN/I route often enough to know how things are supposed to work; and regardless of what it may or may not has been in response to, and regardless of other stuff, a violation of a sanction that relates not just the violation of policy, but one of the Five Pillars to boot, isn't something that can be shrugged at. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I generally don't involve myself in these highly charged ANI's, but decided to throw my hat in the ring. Having read through the talk page referenced there can be no other way to read YRC's comments as anything but a violation of the restrictions placed on him at his RFC/U which I also followed closely. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per observations made in the "‎Baiting discussions from ArbCom", which I ask remain unhatted as there is noting particularly disruptive or inflammatory which would necessitate curtailing such a discussion. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The comment was uncivil, without doubt, and YRC has had plenty enough final warnings before now that another would sadly just be delaying the inevitable. Yes, he was baited, but that does not excuse the incivility. If this was a first offence, then something on the order of an admonishment would be be a suitable response to an editor who was baited into incivility, but this is sadly not a first offence. It is made more troublesome by his being under self-agreed civility parole, the penalty for breaching he knew to be a site ban. A permanent ban is too harsh, rather an indefinite ban that allows for a return after YRC has demonstrated a significant period of trouble-free collaborative editing in another environment is I think the only realistic option available to us that will have a positive outcome for en.wp. This is not excusing Maunus' baiting, which is equally unacceptable, and his resignation of the admin bit is the minimum repercussion warranted - should there be another incidence (and I fervently hope there isn't) then Maunus too should, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, be subject to a block. In other words, Maunus should treat this as an absolute final warning. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. That edit was beyond the pale, and it's not as if this is his first problem in this field. He'd agreed to his sanctions - now he must live with them. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Thats the wrong question. Including the previous cases it should be called: "When did he not breach any strict civilty probation?" Sad, but true. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The probation-in-question, should be repealed. Honestly, indef an editor for what? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support some people just don't learn... --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Facepalm - so a dedicated contributor (perhaps overly so) gets baited by another dedicated contributor who has since implied that he was not putting his best face forward, and bites at the bait. Perhaps just leave it at "time served" after the tarring and feathering he's gotten on this page in the past 24h or so (though the indef block might be more humane in the end). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Nobody held a laser-goose to his head and forced him to bite. If it wasn't a long-standing issue it wouldn't be such a big deal, but the camel's back finally broke. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, YPC was on civility parole. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: sorry, but that comment was incredibly racist and if a new user said it, he'd be banned, let alone a user on his final final chance. Any baiting does not mitigate it enough to not be a bannable offence. Seriously, I'd expect that sort of conduct from a card-carrying loyal member of the English Defence League, not a veteran editor. And in response to "it's not racist because it's true": one could easily argue that there is a pattern of child rape in the British entertainment industry, would that warrant adding Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal to Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt: British-descended atheist, was on the "remove links" side of the ANI debate below. Sceptre (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support (non-administrator) - YRC was on civility parol and that edit has unfortunately and undoubtedly crossed the line. This was a violation of a sanction that relates to violation of the civility policy , but also one of the five pillars and the RFC stated that there would be a site ban should YRC violate this parole. YRC's edit proves that the community cannot exhaust anymore patience here and this amount of incivility is really the last straw. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. YRC raised a concern about bias with an editor on that editor's talk page. Opinions differ as to whether that's uncivil. Either way, YRC has apologised below for upsetting Maunus, and agreed to comment on contributions not contributers going forward. This does not justify a site ban for a generally very valuable Wikipedian. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • and agreed to comment on contributions not contributers going forward - for the umpteenth time. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support YRC and editors like him are the primary reason I don't edit here as much as I used to. Whether you want to make a case for baiting or not, this instance should show that YRC is incapable of not participating in conflicts. He's well aware of what he's agreed to do as far as civility (several times), but he can't resist making the comments. He's been blocked 20+ times, been nearly blocked many more, and has taken sanctions and wikibreaks to avoid other blocks. Every time he's blocked (or nearly blocked), there's