Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Weird and inaccurate information repeatedly inserted in reference on Elastic Therapeutic Taping.[edit]

Elastic therapeutic tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not know who is inserting this information so I cannot notify them. I am notifying whoever is reading this that the product and medical technique known as Kinesiology taping or Elastic Therapeutic Taping was not invented by Komp and Mazza. The patents cited in the early edits were for a different product, sold currently as Kendall "Sher-Light" tape. This has been going on since the summer of 2012 and it is hard to continue to assume good faith, as at some point this person or discrete group of people had to have read the patent materials they were citing. At least I would hope so. Here is a link to the tape they developed. It is a different tape.https://www.medco-athletics.com/Supply/Product.asp?Leaf_Id=85910 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonTigerMom (talkcontribs) 19:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The who in question seems to be User:67.168.206.47. However, I don't think this is the right place to discuss the matter. This probably should either be brought up at Talk:Elastic therapeutic tape or you could try communicating with the IP as this seems to be more of a content dispute. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of this particular issue, the article needs more attention. In particular, it had a so-called 'history' section full of promotional claims. As none of these complied with the relevant policy, WP:MEDRS, I have deleted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's weird ... the "history" deleted was appropriately sourced (they weren't medical statements, they were statements explaining how this particular unproven medical "stuff" came to be so popular), and several MEDRS tags on medical claims which did need to be sourced to secondary review sources were removed. Whatever. I'm (undeniably) a fan of MEDRS, but when it's misapplied, folks end up (wrongly) irritated at the guideline. That means either allowing medical claims from journal sources when secondary reviews should be used, as well as disallowing lay sources when they are appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There were no sources 'explaining how this particular unproven medical "stuff" came to be so popular' - for that, we'd need a source that actually explained it, rather than sources that it was seen at the Olympics, was used by Lance Armstrong (I'll not comment on his reliability as a source), and was used at Wimbledon and the EUFA championships. Find a reliable source that says it is popular, rather than trying to prove it by synthesis. Incidentally, there seems to be some confusion in the article as to whether it refers to a particular brand of tape, or to 'elastic therapeutic tape' in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TWFanmily and User:Ellielouux[edit]

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

Resolved: speedy deleted. Hopefully that ends it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, new editor Ellielouux (talk · contribs) created the article "TWFanmily". This article is about the fanbase of the group The Wanted. I've been able to confirm the existence of this term to describe the fanbase [1], but the article as created by Ellielouux is a jumble of unreferenced, highly non-neutral text. The article was prod'ed by User:Scientific Alan 2, but Ellielouux unprod'ed it a minute later. I then turned it into a redirect to The Wanted (where the fanbase isn't even mentioned). I then posted to Ellielouux's talk page explaining what I did and why [2]. Ellielouux continues to revert changes to the article. Some other eyes, please. Ellielouux has been notified. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • User:MrX tagged it for speedy deletion. I turned it into a redirect again, and tried (hopefully not in vain) one last time to explain the situation to Ellielouux [3]. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And again Ellielouux reverts. I'm done. Another set of eyes please. Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been speedy deleted now, but it really should exist as a redirect. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Boldly recreated as redirect. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:44, 28 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.

A concern about the article about Walid Shoebat[edit]

Walid Shoebat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article says that CNN accused Walid of being a fraud. It leaves the matter there without further remarks. However, Walid provided an extensive response to these accusations. Why were these not included? The author included the criticisms of a member of CAIR. However I have heard that at one individual was actively involved at some level with Hamas and they were convicted of a crime for this. Would someone please look into this matter further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.154.115 (talkcontribs) 2013-01-28 22:33:29‎

  • This is Wikipedia. Edit the article. Source your claim. Be prepared to discuss.--WaltCip (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Or, rather: Find a better and more trustworthy source of information than "I have heard.". Nail down the actual facts of the matter using people who check their facts, who have good reputations for accuracy, and who have properly published their information. Read Talk:Walid Shoebat#This might be one of the worst written articles on Wikipedia and the rest of the talk page. Then and only then turn to editing the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What's up?[edit]

Apply directly to the forehead. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 29 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.

Am I the only one who can't get scripts and collapsible thingys to work or is it a site-wide problem? AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 04:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of that, but the best venue to get a problem like that fixed is at WP:VPT. They'll probably suggest bypassing your cache or something along those lines. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It worked! Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 04:53, 29 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.

Undo some moves please[edit]

A month or so ago, I meant to indefinitely block the already temporarily blocked Bigh Whigh (talk · contribs) for socking, but neglected to do so. I fixed the block, but he moved a couple of pages before I was aware of him. I don't know how to undo page moves. Thx! --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I only see one move, of the article on partial-birth abortion, and there are no deleted contributions. Did you meant some other username? And why can't you undo the moves? It looks like they'll be simple Special:MovePage/Late termination of pregnancy tasks; is there something I'm missing? I'd rather not move anything myself until I know better what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
To undo a page move, you just move it again back to the original - if there's a redirect it'll warn you and as an admin you can force the move over the redirect. But one thing to be wary of is that if you tell it to move the talk page too and there's a redirect for that, it can fail and leave you with the page moved and its talk not. When there have been redirects, I've generally moved the page and the talk separately. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

Niemti (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all edits to articles or discussions relating to Anita Sarkeesian, broadly construed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 29 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.

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[4] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
He has been warned about this various times,[14][15][16][17] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..
It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC) ─────────────────────────Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter Isotalo 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Wikipedia.Cúchullain t/c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.
Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?
Peter Isotalo 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Wikipedia.Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was probably an inappropriate statement, but a quote from elsewhere and about a different person. Still, I would advise Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That kind of blasé comment does not alleviate any concerns, you know.
Peter Isotalo 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I would not be so much concerned about this particular statement to bring the matter to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
These examples are merely to show that Niemti refuses to take feminists like Sarkeesian seriously. This is about campaigning for months to skew the article to fit his own personal preferences, and for choking the talkpage in the process. Peter Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If the comment were isolated it would not be a matter for ANI. However, it's part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months.Cúchullain t/c 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I still do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer talkcontribs 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)I've decided to remove my !vote per the comments responding to this and other comments; I thus have no opinion on this issue.Satellizer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Wikipedia these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter Isotalo 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It's really simple. Hot Rod Magazine might be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of cars, however it is not a reliable source for the theory of relativity...even if the theory of relativity is applied to cars. Similarly, game journalists might be reliable sources for games, however they are not reliable sources for cultural studies/women's studies/etc...even if those things are applied to games--which is what's going on in this instance. So no, a reliable source for one topic isn't a reliable source for another topic. As mentioned above, failing to get this point (WP:RS) is one of the problems. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain t/c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Wikipedia; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Echoing DaveFuchs and NE Ent, as I see it there's already consensus that Niemti should not be editing video game articles at all. bridies (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


  • I came from my weekend and I see what. You "should not be editing video game articles at all", too, but also maybe first decide if this is a video game article or not (allegedly it sin't). The article is also using Kotaku, which is a very unprofessional video game tabloid blog (as noted by the acclaimed game director Hideki Kamiya[18]). And you know what's "disruptive"? Not allowing a discussion on talk page, replying with "fucking deal" and such, doing things like this thread. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, amd also I just though about it, and this single-event article should be merged into something like "Women and video gaming controversies" (or some better name, it was quick). Which would also cover the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, the game writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on (who all have no articles on Wikipedia, despite being widely reported, too, including in the mainstream press, and often in the very same articles as Sarkeesian - just google them and you'll see). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a fine example of the incoherent, attitude riddled rantings you tend to muddle discussions with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, also not. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This is just an attempt to midirect attention away from your disruptive behavior and towards abstract content issues. That's not going to fly.Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Niemti shows no sign of relenting either here or at Sarkeesian's talkpage. He's even calling WP:VG/RS "a joke".[19] And then there's the deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies. Topic ban now, please. Peter Isotalo 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion has been going on for just a few days. As an uninvolved admin, in my view it would be premature to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it's time to move forward with this proposal yet, but Niemti's recent spate of commentary contains more of the same problematic behavior and suggests he has no intention of changing.Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Because treating Kotaku (a source of such fine "journalism" as this or that) an unconditionally reliable source surely must be a joke. Anyway, I'm done hopelessly trying to initiate a proper (with arguments and counter-arguments, instead of abuse and bullying that I'm getting from you) discussion on the changes with the article (the article that I've previously edited more than anyone else). See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and (of course) I never made a "deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies", and with this bizarrily absurd comment you've just got a taste of what's going on at this talk page. Now I'm unwatching it, like I just unwatched this article, after being central in building it up. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD right after a unanimously opposed RM. We can add WP:FORUMSHOPPING to the list of disruptive behaviors.Cúchullain t/c 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Enough about Kotaku. If you don't like that there's a consensus that it's reliable, start a discussion at WP:VG to change it. The issue at hand here is the edits you're trying to make to this article, and how you handle yourself on the talk page. Neither of those things have anything to do with Kotaku's status of reliability, so it's irrelevant to discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support narrow topic ban -- it's way past the question of right/wrong or POV. Niemti is being moderately rude (which is hardly unusual) and has shown that he is unable to discuss politely and constructively about, at the very least, this specific topic. This isn't "improving Wikipedia" in the slightest, and that should be everyone's main goal. There's no reason to allow this to further devolve into something even worse and there's plenty of other articles that can be improved. Salvidrim!  00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban The problem is evident, even on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - My conclusion after having read the various points put forth by editors here and at the RM is that a topic ban is appropriate in this situation. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per DreamGuy. And frankly I find the comments by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ("get over it" and "get a on with your life!") and even those by Cúchullain (in the way he describes Niemti's comments - which appear to be civil and reasonable - as "he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants") to be way more uncivil and sanction worthy than anything Niemti has said or done.Volunteer Marek 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I highly suggest you take a look at the related RfC and see that RedPen and Cúchullain's comments, while not necessarily excusable, are small potatoes to the majority of Niemti's reported behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't accept that any of my comments, or Red's for that matter, have been uncivil, though I'll gladly tone it down in the future if it takes some edge off the discussion. It also bears reiteration that no one else in the discussion has made unfounded or inappropriate comments about the subject, gone off on tangents irrelevant to actual article improvements, refused to hear it when consensus is against them, or engaged in forum shopping when they don't get their way. That's the issue here; it's not one problem, it's a pattern of behavior.Cúchullain t/c 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't believe calling someone's responses "incoherent rants" is uncivil, especially in Niemti's case, where he almost seems to do it on purpose, or uncontrollably. In calmer past situations, I've kindly asked him to slow down and address issues one by one or with more concise responses, because I couldn't understand what he was trying to say, and he simply wouldn't. He's been told he's hard to understand when he responds like this, and he does it anyways, and yet isn't above complaining when no one sides with him. It's not an attack on him, it's merely an observation on how he handles himself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DreamGuy. I reviewed the diffs as well, and I see a lot of hair pulling over Niemti's responses, some of it uncivil, but nothing worthy of Niemti being TB'ed. Perhaps some new eyes whose owners blood pressure is 120/80 might be helpful at the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer
     
    21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I echo the sentiments of ThomasO1989 and suggest that you take a look at the related RfC about his reported behavioral patterns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I count at least thirteen users, including myself, who have tried to debate Niemti regarding Sarkeesian, a few with a bit more intensity than roughness than necessary, but most of them have engaged with him in a civilized manner. If you want to see a particularly frustrating example of how Niemti has operated, take a look at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2#Dubious. Fifteen posts in 24 hours just in an attempt to hammer home his own views about what "university-level women's studies courses" means. And that's just one of the early ones from back in November. Peter Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this is the situation when someone (Niemti) actually does a lot for the project, but he is stubborn, strongly opinionated at article talk pages, and he tells exactly what he thinks. However, the info he actually places in articles is good and comply with NPOV. What I did in such cases is allowing the editor (Niemti) to take a lead with creating the content, and discussing only as much as necessary. He suggests merging at article talk page? That's fine. Simply tell "no" and explain why. No need for a long discussion. He proposes and AfD? That's fine. Just vote "keep" and explain why. Hence my "oppose" above. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Niemti is clearly driven by a personal disagreement with the basic tenets of gender studies and critical feminist analysis. And all because someone had the nerve to aim it at his favorite form of popular culture, video games. He's certainly not alone in this, and while he's not the kind of person who is sending death threats and anonymous misogynist abuse, his rants has an openly anti-feminist edge that equates analysis of gender roles with extremism and a host of other prejudices about academic media studies. In other words, you're suggesting that he be allowed to engage in activities that don't have anything to do with article improvement. Why exactly should we humor him, or anyone else, in that respect? Peter Isotalo 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It was precisely my point that most of his mainspace edits are actually improvement of content (they have everything to do with article improvement), as evident from his successful participation in creation of good articles and his edits in another subject area where I collaborated with him a few years ago. As about rants at article talk pages (if any), it always takes two or more to tango. Tell and justify your opinion one time if this is something like RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
        • We're discussing a topic ban relating to the Sarkeesian article. Niemti's participation there has been extremely negative with little or no improvement. And the RfC suggests there's been disharmonious dealings in the GA process concerning video game articles. So no matter how many good edits there are elsewhere, they don't simply cancel out the looong sting of bad ones relating to feminist media criticism. I'm not sure what you feel you want justified, btw. Can you be more precise? Peter Isotalo 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, the quality of Niemti's article work, or any other content matter, isn't at issue here. The problem is his behavior at the talk page, which has been consistently disruptive on multiple fronts.Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is my understanding that Niemti voluntarily will not edit article about AS and its talk page [20]. I also assume that he will not edit anything about AS on other pages. I hope this thread can be closed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • His voluntary withdrawal can be revoked whenever he wants, a community topic ban can't. If he'd volunteered to do that at the start it would be different, but effectively cancelling consensus already established for a community topic ban with something voluntary he can choose to cancel at any time (and thus forcing the ban consensus to start again from scratch) seems a little too much like gaming the system. NULL talk
      edits
      01:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I thought consensus is not determined by head count, but by the quality of argument. So, I am not sure if we have consensus. No, I do not think anyone can revoke their promise. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I am, of course, making my own evaluation of consensus in my comment above, based on the quality of the arguments presented. Whoever eventually closes the thread will make their own evaluation. My point, however, was that it's easy for someone looking at consensus for a ban to make a last minute act of apparent concession to try to mitigate the inevitable outcome. Offering to cooperate at the eleventh hour can easily be seen as a 'save your own hide' kind of thing, and doesn't mean the community automatically accepts that the ban is no longer necessary. Some people may not have faith that he'll be able to abide by it, particularly given his history. NULL talk
          edits
          02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It is pretty common that people on the verge of being banned/topic banned to suddenly volunteer to stop, but as Null said, it's not reason to stop this process, as he can chose to change his mind at any point, where it's not the case with a topic ban. I think it's especially important not to stop this discussion based on past comments Niemti has said. On the talk page, he has alluded to the fact that he may wait until things die down and go at it again, and that he believes since he edits the article more than anyone else in the discussion, his opinion counts for more. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not particularly inclined to take Niemti at his word, considering his lack of regard for other editors' input over the last two months. However, the bottom line is that he shouldn't touch anything related to Sarkeesian on Wikipedia, voluntarily or otherwise.Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I am also not inclined to take Niemti's word for it, given his history of rejecting other editors' input over the past two months per Cuchullain. Per Sergecross, Niemti alluded to the fact that he might go at it again when things die down. The bottom line is that the editor should not touch the Sarkeesian article or anything related to her on Wikipedia, voluntarily or not. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
By telling this, you guys basically reject his good will offer. If you tell to Neimti that he has absolutely no obligation to keep his word, may be he indeed has no such obligation. I am now confused. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more persuasive if Niemti said explicitly that he would avoid editing or commenting on the subject in the future. The linked comment says no such thing.Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not telling that coming forward and criticizing himself in this environment is exactly like Struggle session (or "Comrade's court" in Russia), but in certain ethnic/national cultures this is something man would never do. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This whole BLP thing is terribly overblown. What Niemti actually suggested was to merge or delete the article. That certainly would not hurt the person. Banning a long term well-intended contributor because of this is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The "BLP thing" is certainly an issue, and one of Niemti's making. Taken together, his disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of behavior that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia (and of course that's on top of all his other disruptive behaviors).Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I did not read whole discussion (tl;dr, sorry), but in the most "incriminating" diff above Noemti simply explains why he thinks the person is not notable (hence the suggested merging of page). Yes, he uses available sources to explain his position. Some of them may not be reliable, but this is always happens in articles about people of marginal notability. As about his tone, this is a matter of personal taste. It is pretty common that people are excited during such discussions. Bringing everyone here is not an option. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't regard that as the "most incriminating" diff, it's just particularly illustrative of the various disruptive behaviors in which he's engaged. Honestly, his tone is the least of it - it's far more serious that he's making unsourced negative comments on a BLP, using the talk page as a FORUM, ignoring the input of others, and engaging in forum shopping to get his way.Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Some"? None of the sources are reliable. The topic is gender studies, not video game reviewing. Period. The opinions of the gaming community at large is not our concern anymore than John/Jane Doe's kitchen conversations about... whatever. The only major difference between these two is that the gaming community is good at loudly proclaiming its disapproval in online forums. That does not make those loud claims relevant or reliable to Wikipedia as sources. Why is this so hard to accept? Why does a dozen or more users have to spend week after week saying the same thing to the same argumentative person?
Peter Isotalo 07:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No, the subject is not gender study, but biography. Niemti makes an argument that person is not notable. I personally disagree with his argument, but it is very common that people stray away in such discussions or make an argument unsupported by RS. Bringing them here is counterproductive if the person acts in a good faith and contributes a lot to the project, as in this case. This is because our goal is to maximize participation, editor retention and ultimately creation of content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The topic of any "criticism" should be the same as the work that is being criticised. As such, trying to introduce any sort of criticism in this article involves gender studies. Thus, in relation to what constitutes a reliable source, as Peter correctly states above, the topic is gender studies and not video game reviewing. DonQuixote (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Stongly oppose topic ban: As an uninvolved editor, I think it is premature IMHO to go directly to an indef topic ban (without even suggesting 3-month ban), which smacks of forever silencing an opponent in a wp:POV_dispute. Meanwhile, the use of non-wp:RS sources, as mentioned above, indicates that all sides of the dispute should request mediation to use sourced text, or perhaps merge the article for lack of sources which sustain a separate page. Also, should disregard "Support" !votes from involved editors, as this seems an atttempt to force the outcome of a "fair fight" by censuring opponents. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If Niemti was an outspoken creationist who engaged in destructive campaigns for months in an article about evolution, would you also describe a call for a topic ban as "forever silencing an opponent"? Peter Isotalo 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again, content issues aren't up for discussion here. This proposal is about Niemti's behavior on the talk page, examples of which are highlighted above.Cúchullain t/c 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, it should be made clear that making positive contributions is never an excuse for disruptive behavior, especially on the talk page of Anita Sarkeesian; the examples of which are shown above are all there, clear as crystal. As explicitly stated by Cuchullain, Niemti's disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of disruptive behavior, which is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. And unfortunately, his disruption is part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although, I have no problem with making the topic ban time limited. The fact that after all of this discussion, including Niemti's own participation in, that Niemti now thinks that AfD is the right treatment shows that he is only here to POV push. The civility of the comments is wholly irrelevant; WP:CIVIL is only one of our pillars, and WP:NPOV is another. Niemti has argued tendentiously to include comments from a source that clearly does not meet WP:RS and certainly doesn't meet the higher level of scrutiny required by WP:BLP. Now, because he's not getting his way, he thinks he'll take to it to AfD, despite the fact that such a nomination would be WP:SNOW kept. Civil POV pushing is, in fact, one of our biggest problems on Wikipedia. Here we have a crystal clear example of it happening, and thus we should take the opportunity to stop it, now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What AfD are you talking about? Niemti said he would rather not edit this article at all [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban. Let's not mess around with BLPs, especially one like this that has already been vandalised to the extent that the vandalism hit the news. WP:BLPBAN exists for a reason. Andreas JN466 09:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, this page has been vandalized at one point, just as many other wikipedia articles, but why do you want to hold Niemti responsible? It was not him who vandalized this page. To the conrary, he contributed a lot and positively in this BLP article (I mean the article itself, while the talk page discussion was indeed heated and sometimes strayed away from improvement the article). Once again, he only suggested merging sometime ago, which has been hotly debated. This is not vandalism, not a BLP violation, and certainly does not hurt the person. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What I am holding him responsible for is waffling on on a BLP talk page about how the subject should have "ignored" the appalling harassment she suffered, including here, or done things like "counterattack literally with her vagina". Get a grip. Andreas JN466 19:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
He was comparing and contrasting how other people responded to very similar experiences to how Sarkeesian reacted when discussing whether there should be an article about her. Another woman who was attacked in a very similar fashion did "counter-attack with her vagina" in a manner of speaking and others do ignore this type of vitriol as it is rather typical.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
In a manner of highly inept and inappropriate speaking, perhaps. [22] Saying here on Wikipedia that a woman who has been harassed, including here on Wikipedia, could have ignored it or "counter-attacked literally using her vagina" instead of raising a "huge moral panic" is certainly considerably more inept and inappropriate than Wikipedia should tolerate. Andreas JN466 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You can repeat this until you are blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. His statements, in context, are far less serious than how they are being portrayed out of context. For the context, I ask people to simply google "Jennifer Hepler vagina" to understand that comment. At best you can fault him for using "literally" as an emphatic.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This is difficult for me to judge since I came from another language and culture. I saw one of these shows on US TV performed by a women, so I have to assume such language is permissible in US culture. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, you do not tell a woman who has suffered sexually motivated cyber harassment that she could have "ignored it", or "counterattacked using her vagina", not unless you are socially completely inept or worse. The West is stil on the same planet as the East, you know. Harassment is considered a problem in both places. [23] Perhaps Wikipedia is an exception. Andreas JN466 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Andreas, I understand where your frustrations are coming from. This article is a sensitive BLP that has been the target of harassment last May. And as I have stated, positive contributions is never an excuse for disruptive behavior on the talk page, which has been clearly pointed out by Cuchullain. Trying to introduce any sort of criticism in this article involves gender studies. As such, in relation to what constitutes a reliable source, the topic is gender studies and not video game reviewing. Unfortunately, the quality of Niemti's work or any other content matter, is not at issue here. The problem is with his seriously disruptive behavior at the talk page, where Niemti has making unsourced negative comments on a BLP, using the talk page as a FORUM, ignoring the input of others, and engaging in forum shopping to get his way while he is currently the subject of an RFC. He was also adding comments from a source, Destructoid, that clearly does not meet WP:RS and certainly doesn't meet the higher level of scrutiny required by the BLP policy. On top of that, his sources have all sorts of issues in regards to WP:RS, WP:VG/RS, and WP:NPOV and they should not be used. No thanks, we don't want this type of disruptive behavior here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. On top of that he has made three times more edits to her talk page than anybody else [24] ... way to go. Andreas JN466 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If that was indeed a contentious unsourced material about a living person (I am still not sure that it was), why did not anyone just removed immediately this thing from article talk page, as should be done per policy, instead of bringing this here? End of story. That's why some part of this looks to me as WP:Battle. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually though about entirely removing some of the threads that Niemti engaged in, but that's surrounded by multiple restrictions (see WP:TPOC). It would most likely only have provoked Niemti, and it would likely have been considered too high-handed even by unsympathetic editors. And there was the occasional glimmer of something semi-relevant in Niemti's talkpage activities, which complicated issues even if it was ultimately overshadowed by the unbearable amounts of opinionated ranting and disparaging commentary about the article subject.
Peter Isotalo 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Give me a break. Nothing he said is over the line. He was disputing the notability of Sarkeesian as a biographical subject. Her reaction to harassment does appear to be the main source of her notability and that arising due to her video series so his is a reasonable position to take. Suggesting that it should not be a bio, but an article on her experience or video series is rather reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban, support making this a strong shot above the bow. This is a sensitive BLP, there seems to be a lot of jealousy between the editor and the subject, the criticism on the talk page comes close to rising to the level of inappropriate discourse. Slowly back away from the cliff, my friend... Carrite (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Per Andreas, below. Oppose for now. I'm half-way through the talk page archive and, though his suggestion she should have ignored the flaming is stupid and patronising, he has removed unsourced puffery about her work being used in "university-level women's studies courses" against significant opposition, and removed the claim she is best known for her video blog Feminist Frequency, both of which are significant improvements. Claims that he breaches WP:NOTAFORUM, at least as they relate to comments he's made in the first half of the archive, are mistaken. Editors on the page didn't get the pertinence of the points he was making. Perhaps he reels out of control further down the archive but I've seen no evidence of that in this thread. I have to go out now and will comment further when I get a chance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note that her work is indeed used in "university-level women's study courses". Source: [25]. Examples: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] (for this course). Note that the last one for example is from 2011, predating her harassment. Would you accept these as evidence that her work is so used, and that it is her work that is considered of interest by these universities, rather than merely the fact that she was trolled? Andreas JN466 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for proving me to be a superficial fool yet again. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't mention it, Anthony. :) Best, Andreas JN466 11:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Quite obviously, Neimti was not logical in his argument. That's why I noted above that I disagree with him. However, this is not a reason for topic ban in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. This is unacceptable behavior for a BLP article. BLPs should have stricter RS standards than other articles, not weaker. Most video game blogs do not meet BLP standards, especially when you're talking about criticism of the article subject. Writing personally disparaging rants about the article subject on the talk page is also not appropriate for a BLP. Considering Niemti's persistence, I'm not sure why we're only considering a topic ban. Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly reliable sources are needed for claims about living people, not claims about someone disagreeing with a living person's argument. Noting that a video game blog disagrees with her characterization of x video game is not a BLP issue. Our consideration in that instance should be whether the view represented in the source is not a prominent opinion or if it is too inflammatory. I mean seriously, read this thing. Does that read like something that is absolutely horrific and unacceptable for an article about a living person? Basically the source goes, "I am sorry my dear madame, but I believe you are quite mistaken in your characterization of electronic entertainment. You see, these interactive moving pictures to which you refer are actually quite progressive with regards to gender relations. Ho-ho, cheerio!" *sipsa da tea*--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Horrific" is your description, but it's definitely unacceptable as a commentary on Sarkeesian's analysis. Why? Because it's a video game blog with zero credentials commenting on the field of gender studies, the main topic of the article (see comparison to Hot Rod Magazine commenting on the theory of relativity earlier in this discussion). Politeness doesn't automatically translate to reliability or relevance. Peter Isotalo 09:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Do note that WP:VG/RS states that Destructoid is classified as "situational". Therefore, that source is not really considered a reliable source to be used on a biography of a living person. It is a blog with zero credentials commenting on the field of gender studies, which is the main topic on the article, and using it as commentary on Sarkeesian's analysis is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but your interpretation of DA RULZ is terribly misguided. Many in the gaming community do not have degrees in gender studies, that does not mean their opinions are irrelevant. The opinion of members of the gaming community with regards to her claims about video games has some element of relevance don't you think? Destructoid would be a reliable source for claims about what a prominent member of the gaming community thinks about Sarkeesian's claims about video games. Also, BLP does not say you cannot use these sources on a biography of a living person, but that they cannot be used to back up claims regarding a living person. Niemti was not talking about using it to make a claim about a living person, but rather to make a claim about some other person's opinion regarding some claims a living person made about video games. WP:BLP does not apply to that sort of claim.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (from an involved editor) - The real issue as I see it comes from concerns that were raised during the RfC/U that one of Niemti's central interests is in adding information glorifying the sexual characteristics of female video game characters. I haven't looked into these claims because I think Niemti generally understands about proper sourcing and I've assumed good faith that the articles properly merited coverage of these aspects. But if these concerns are sustainable and there is a pattern of sexist editing then a limited-duration topic ban might be a good idea as a warning. Given Niemti's prolific editing and the frequency of his conflicts with other editors, this kind of non-NPOV editing could be very harmful. It all depends on whether or not there is a pattern here, though. If this neutrality issue is just a one-off thing then I'll take Niemti's withdrawal from the talk page as a sign that he's dropped the WP:STICK. -Thibbs (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Close discussion?[edit]

The above discussion has been lasting for over a week as I post here. While I still support the topic ban, I have posted a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved administrator to assess and close this discussion. Furthermore, while almost all of the recent Sarkeesian discussions have been archived at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2, I would suggest that everyone should take a deep breath, relax, and wait for the closing admin. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You promised to one of admins not follow edits by Niemty, do not you remember? My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not care about that anymore, as I have already moved on and that case against me was not substantiated. I am still waiting for the closing administrator to assess and close the above discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As long as people keep on bringing up issues regarding Niemti to ANI, RFC, or WP:VG, or with Niemti bringing attention to himself with going to WP:RM, you can hardly accuse Sjones of "following his edits". If only Niemti wasn't constantly making a scene or stirring up trouble in our field of editing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you guys have lot of common interests, including many user talk pages and even Organ theft in Kosovo... My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(sigh)... Really, I would rather put this off-topic discussion to rest, as this is seriously getting us nowhere fast. We are talking about a topic ban proposal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

MVBW, if you have an issue regarding Sjone's behavior, bring it to his talk page, or open up a new ANI report. It doesn't belong in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I know how you feel Serge. I just don't want to discuss this issue anymore and I have already moved on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that's fine, I'm not saying you should have to, I'm just saying that if MVBW wants to discuss it, this isn't the place to do so. (If he does choose a better avenue, you can still opt out of discussing it with him all the same.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. If I don't want to discuss this matter, that is completely my decision. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I only wanted to tell that I agree with comment by User:Wikid77 above. He suggested to disregard all "Support" "!votes from involved editors, as this seems an attempt to force the outcome of a "fair fight" by censuring opponents." (see above). For example, this editor, who was missing for a couple of months, came specifically to post his !support vote here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────As it has been stated numerous times in this thread (by myself and others), the quality of Niemti's work or any other content matter, is not the case here. The actual issue is with his disruptive behavior on Sarkeesian's talk page, and we cannot allow this disruption to continue even if he returns to the article. On Sarkeesian's talk page, it is clear enough that there are serious problems. While it is clear that the number of upset people is at least in the tens; it could be unclear if that might represent a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters, although some uninvolved users have commented on the situation. With this in mind, I would like to make a request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please take a look at the recent discussions, and the ongoing RFC, as well as the current situation. More input from uninvolved administrators and editors will help determine community exhaustion of patience, and we can't allow this discussion to languish another week. We need a clear consensus on this matter from both involved and uninvolved users. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

MVBV, your suggestion is makes absolutely no sense. By your argument, any time one editor was disruptive, and a half dozen or more tried to stop the disruption, we would automatically ignore whatever those good faith, productive editors were doing. So all an editor has to do is to cause problems on a talk page, and suddenly they become untouchable? Seriously, think through the actual consequence of your suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the suggestion was originally Wikid77's, that MVBV advocated. Still, you're both entirely wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that is not what me or Wikid77 said (please see above, and I provided a couple of links that should be a matter of concern: [34], [35]). I will not repeat anything, but would like to notice that in a case any BLP violations (that was the reason for this thread) one suppose to either remove the contentious poorly sourced information immediately and/or post the matter on BLP noticeboard for community discussion, instead of bringing it here. My very best wishes (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This is really getting us nowhere fast. For the umpteenth time, content issues or the quality of Niemti's work are not any of our concerns. It's about a topic ban regarding his disruptive behavior. I don't want to push this too hard but I think the best option is that we should just wait for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the proposal, determine the consensus and close it as I think this discussion has already gone on long enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm definitely seeing some bias in the comments provided in the original report and I think they're beyond what we should expect from an editor striving from neutrality. I agree the edits are become tendentious too. His edits seem to go beyond a reading of the sources and are actively making the argument that Sarkeesian should "get over" the harassment (I'm getting a strong "elevator" vibe here...). Also, I find the hero worship of Jim Sterling amusing, as Sterling would be the first to admit he's a professional troll. Sceptre (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If i was an administrator, here's what i'd do if he just got off a ban: 1. warn him. 2. if he ignores it, then ban him again for longer. (hopefully it doesn't come to this one though)3. If after his longer ban has lifted he continues to do this crap, then either make a super long ban or an indefinate ban. how do i know this? based on all the cases i've seen here sinse 2005 or so, i'd think that that would be the ideal actions, although i hope it doesn't get to an indefinate ban. Alien Arceus 05:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but you probably ought to figure out the difference between a WP:BLOCK and aWP:BAN before you go about giving advice. (Also, he's not fresh off of a block or a ban, so your scenario is fundamentally wrong either way.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sergio, i've been reading this pageo sinse 2005eo, and know the difference. Alien Arceus 15:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you using them wrong then? And it doesn't matter how long you've been here, it doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to understand the basic premise of what's going on here since he's didn't "just got off a ban" as you worded it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second request for closure[edit]

Seconding the request for closure from an uninvolved Admin. There have been a few good comments lately but they're getting to be few and far between now. Please? Thanks... Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Just about all aspects of this case have by now been processed quite thoroughly.
Peter Isotalo 17:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - All aspects of the case has been processed thoroughly. It's really time to close this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's plenty of discussion to determine consensus. We're mostly just going back and forth now.Cúchullain t/c 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

and it took you guies this long to figure that out? i figured it out a while ago tha this is going nowhere. i smelt it as clear as day. Alien Arceus 18:27, 29 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.

European Alliance for Freedom[edit]

This article has been subjected to: polemic edits, edits removing sourced content, a series of single purpose and/or conflict of interest editing accounts, and refusal to communicate on the part of the the editor(s?) attempting these changes. I could ask for page protection, but it would fix nothing. This has been going on for two weeks now. See article's history. Some help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Check the link for my comments rejecting the AfC[edit]

They's Hoaxzin. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 29 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.

Mehere Karand article Basket Feudalist 17:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Not sure why this is here - what admin action is needed? Looks like a perfectly reasonable AfC rejection to me. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah thanks. I thought it might be worse than just a badly written article; that it have been an attempt at placing imaginary- spoof- facts in the 'pedia. As I said, a google search brings up nothing about the man, the tribe, the sources, or their books. But I didn't want to officially report it until a more experienced editor or admin had had a look. Basket Feudalist 18:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Oversight is always good, but it's best to ask a seasoned AfC editor rather than post on the board. FWIW, administrators aren't necessarily better at judging content than "regular" editors. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Indeed, but I agree with the OP; I did try to confirm sources but I can find nothing not only about the books but about the tribe itself; even if there's a language issue you'd have have expected something to appear, either about the subject, the book, even the authors; especially as the claimed sources are reasonably recent and one of them is supposed to have been published by Harvard UP and therefore should be in English. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind! -so no further action necessary? It has already been rejected anyway. Basket Feudalist 19:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hehe, not anymore: I deleted it as a blatant hoax. Those books, they don't exist. The website goes to a Swiss dance ensemble--if it is connected to the article, it's spam. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:15, 29 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:BotKung[edit]

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

I've blocked the bot at BotKung (talk · contribs), see also comments at User talk:Jutiphan. Anyone can unblock it once it's fixed and we are confident this won't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you just used the standard block interface, but you should probably disable autoblock so the operator doesn't get caught in it. Legoktm (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've disabled autoblock. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've never done this before and didn't even think of the consequences for the operator. I wish all blocks had to have a stop button! Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Good one, cheers! Basket Feudalist 13:49, 28 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.

Pe de Chinelo[edit]

Indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 30 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.

Pe de Chinelo's name has appeared several times on AN and ANI. He was on the verge of being community banned, but was closed as no consensus. More recently, he returned as Althemise (talk · contribs). He has continued his disruptive modus operandi in film-related articles ([36], [37], [38]). This last round of sockpuppetry is the last straw. Can we have a block on him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

He's also taunting on blocking him via edit change notices. Behavior is disruptive with or without the SPI issue. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, and I've pretty much had enough of Pe de Chinelo's antics. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
He's violated the three-revert rule at The Hunger Games (film) and God of War (video game), and probably some other pages I've missed. This needs some administrator attention as soon as possible... Never mind, I'm just gonna AIV this. He's resorted to simple vandalism now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
He's blocked for two days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the block should be made indefinite. If he's really the sock of a blocked user, there's no good reason to keep him around. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I recommend extending the current block to indef. User clearly has no intentions of editing within the spirit and policies of building this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Kudpung's recommendation is accepted given the last half dozen or so edits and summaries. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 29 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.

Audition date website link[edit]

But we don't LIKE spam! Editor blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:12, 30 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.

Special:Contributions/Iamrakeshh has added a non/notable/below standard site's link in a bunch of article's external link section. Manually reversion will take time! Can an admin quickly revert all edit using any tool (if there is any)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think I've cleaned out all of his/her link spamming now. --—Wasell(T) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a tool for this that can be used in extreme cases - Special:Nuke. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Nuke only does articles created, as opposed to mere edits ... at least last time I checked. Mass rollback, maybe ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Clearly what's needed then is Special:EditShatteringKaboom. Face-wink.svg - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
User came back, started mass spamming again, I reported to AIV, user is now blocked. Werieth (talk) 15:51, 29 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.

Hari7478 and Mayasutra, round 2[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV

Mayasutra (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has removed a large section along with the references - diff[39]. His edit summary was "deleted disputed section/see ANI pg". But ANI never rules on content. The admins in ANI didn't refute the contents in this case at all. They didn't even discuss it. That being the case, this user(Mayasutra) removed a well sourced section without consensus/discussion giving a false edit summary. Even another admin questioned Mayasutra's vandalising deletion here - [40]. User:Mayasutra is still defiant. The page(Vadakalai) has a General Sanctions template, according to which admins have right to impose discretionary sanctions for such vandalising deletions with false summaries. Also, Mayasutra has been very abusive in talk page discussions - see below for his abusive comments, planned edit wars, and flaming edit summaries:
[41] - Mayasutra's comments - "As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism......for Dispute Mediation from which you chickened out...."
[42] - Mayasutra's comments - "So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree....Good luck."--- This comment proves beyond doubt that Mayasutra planned an edit war.
[43] - Mayasutra's edit summary - "Expecting editwar, admin intervention..."-- Mayasutra indicated in the edit comment that he knew he was edit warring.
Please consider all these factors - Deletion of a well sourced content without dicussion, by giving a false edit summary(that deletion was even questioned by another admin as mentioned above), abusive behavior in talk pages, orchestrating edit wars to get things done. Mayasutra portrayed such behavior in pages having "Discretionary Sanctions"(template can be seen under the talk pages of Iyengar & Vadakalai). Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already responded to the allegation above here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=534843722
Additionally, EdJohnston has already closed the edit war chapter by warning both of us (Hari7478 however, deleted that from his talk page). So now the pending issue is misquoting sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra



I haven't looked into this whole complaint, but AIV is only for simple/obvious cases, which at a glance this appears to most definitely not be. I'm moving it here in the hopes that we can settle things between the two of them this time. They're both doing a rather bad job communicating, but I see them both as potentially constructive contributors, so why don't we see what we can do to sort this out before one or both of them gets blocked. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


PinkAmpersand, i request you to read the whole complaint please. Sadly, it appears most admin are not willing to read thru the whole issue. The issue here is misquoting sources. Hari478 has passed off his own ethnicity / race theories by misquoting sources. And he needs to explain them and also explain why he is doing it. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
At this point, this looks like more than just a content dispute, so it does appear to be relevant here. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this IS a content dispute. However, it pertains to falsifying and misquoting sources. Hari7478 is playing the silent tactic again. Just as he did with the mediation process. That is, he is choosing not to respond to the ANI notice on misquoting sources. To top it, he has reported me for vandalism. Which means, he is using wiki admin to protect his position of misquoting sources. I expect wiki admin to intervene and ask Hari7478 to respond to each of the 4 issues raised (on misquoting sources). Until he does so, his content cannot be allowed on the Iyengar page and on the Vadakalai page. I hope admin Qwyrxian (who so far appears to be protecting Hari7478 in this regard) will also accept that unless Hari7478 explains why he is misquoting sources, his (disputed) content should not be allowed on wiki pages. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
In event that Hari7478 does not respond (and chooses to stay silent on misquoting sources), admin must make a decision and disallow all his disputed content from all wiki articles Iyengar, Vadakalai and Sri Sampradaya. I would like to know, how much time is admin going to give Hari7478 to respond. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Mayasutra, you posting a comment above Nyttend's message makes the whole discussion look like something else. It would be appreciated if you could post your comments at the bottom of the discussion, and not above an already posted comment(for clarity). This was exactly what you were doing before. After i posted my comment in the previous ANI discussion, you were simultaneously posting reams of text both above and below my comment. Hari7478 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Am responding to each comment by replying below it, not above it. Now, since you are here, reply to the report on misquoting sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
When caste disputes are brought to ANI, we sometimes have the benefit of User:Sitush's comments because he had knowledge of the relative quality of the sources and he is familiar with the usual patterns of caste dispute. In Sitush's temporary absence, I suggest we just enforce the usual edit warring regulations and let the participants know that they really have to seek consensus for their views in content forums (such as the article talk page, or WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). Although User:Mayasutra may appear as the more argumentative of the two, and he has a confusing signature, in my opinion he has a better understanding of WP policy regarding sources. Hari7478 has argued for using the ethnographic work of Edgar Thurston (1855-1935) as a reference about caste, while anyone who peruses Thurston's article will notice things like: "Thurston believed that intelligence was inversely proportional to the breadth of the nose...." If you scan through Hari7478's arguments at Talk:Iyengar you will probably have doubts about his understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, in particular whether he knows what a peer-reviewed source is. Both Hari7478 and Mayasutra should be aware that they can be blocked for edit warring without further notice if they don't find consensus for their changes before editing Iyengar, Vadakalai or Sri Sampradaya again. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Re-posting your massive complaint is not going to help anything. As I say in my comment below, if you have a complaint, please make it below, politely and succinctly (emphasis on the succinctly), and the admins will hear you out. But massive walls of text just make users angry. And once an issue falls off of ANI, you can be pretty sure that replicating the original complaint won't work any differently the second time around. As is often said here, the archival bot is the ultimate arbiter. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Reporting Hari7478[edit]

Since Hari7478 did not respond to the earlier report on misquoting sources, am reporting it again. Sincerely request admin to please take time to read thru the whole complaint; and please take action (which is pending since too long).

The origin of this dispute is casteism. Since Thenkalais absorbed Non-Brahmins into their fold; thus, some Vadakalais seek separatism from them, in terms of ethnic / racial / caste purity. The casteist stand is derived from religious notions of caste purity. However, genetic studies are being falsified and misquoted by Hari7478 to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between the two sects. To that end, general sources are also being misquoted.

Herewith are the points of dispute:

Issue # 1

1) Misleading subheading titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin:
This heading has been used to differentiate between Vadakalai and Thenkalai by ethnicity and origin. I changed this heading to "Subsects" but this is unacceptable to Hari7478. He's been changing it back to “Ethinicity, Genetics and Origin”. Hari7478's deliberate attempt to portray Vadagalais of Indo-Aryan ethnicity and Thengalais of Non-Indo-Aryan Tamil ethnicity, by demarcating and misquoting genetic studies and general sources to portray an ethnic / racial differentiation cannot be allowed.

Issue # 2

2) The line under Ethnicity, genetics and origin states: "These sects may be of distinctly different in origin.[5][6]"

The sources [5] and [6] say no such thing nor support ethnic, genetic, and origin differences between Vadagalais and Thengalais. On the contrary source [5](The changing Indian civilization, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976) support mergers of deshaja (indigenous) priests into the Indo-Aryan ritual fold, before the ascendency of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhawa. I am reproducing the entire page 283 of source [5]:

"Formerly, the priests of these regions were suspect. Thus, Hemadri in his Chatur-varga-chintamani quotes from the Saura Purana: "The Brahmans of Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Saurashtra, Gurjara, Abhira, Konkana, Dravida, Dakshinapatha, Avanti and Magadha should be avoided". Now these deshaja (indigenous) and foreign-origin priests were absorbed in the North- Indian priestly tradition in the Age of Syncretism. This is particularly true in the South, where four stages may be postulated -

(i) Matrilineal Indusian priests over the whole of South, coming from South Iran and Baluchistan with the Iron Age groups, as brought out in Chapter 9. They were Dravidian-speaking and and echoes of their universality and supremacy in the South still survive, in spite of many incrustations, in the temple of the Mother Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai, where she is clearly superior to and more important than her consort, Sundareswarar.

(ii) In the post-Maurya Time of Troubles many Brahmans must have fled from the North West and infiltrated to the South, loaded with gifts and favours by rulers like the greatly "Sanskritising" Pallavas of Kanchi (300-880 AD). These Vadamars or Vadagalai, ie "Northerners" as distinct from the Tongalai or "Southerners"" must have introduced Sanskrit and Patriarchal Aryo-Indian rites.

(iii) In the Age of Syncretism all the deshaja or "native South Indian deities like Murugan, Subrahmanya, Ayappan, Sastha, the great Meenakshi herself, and others were grouped, and merged with Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu, and their priests admitted into the Aryo-Indian fold. (iv) Finally, the South Indian brahmans became ascendant with Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava on the intellectual side ; and with the creators of the Bhakti religion, the Shaiva Nayanars and the Vaishnava Alwars on the emotional side.”

Kindly note Oroon Ghosh “postulated” the above 4 points. However, Hari7478 makes no mention of that; or on the elevation of priests into the Indo-Aryan fold. He uses only point (ii) to mention that Vadakalai are an Indo-Aryan people from Northern India. Fact is, the Vadakalai community was founded by Vedanta Desika and did not exist in the said period of Pallavas (300-880 AD). On what basis can Hari7478 construe that Oroon Ghosh’s postulation refers to the current Vadakalai community? On what basis can he use this source as a reference to claim Vadakalai and Thenkalai sects differ in origin?

This issue requires one to take into account the term "vada" which in Tamil means "north". The Tamils were not so bad in geography (after all they recorded visits of foreign visitors from other countries). If someone came from northern India, they would have used the correct name of the northern indian kingdom from where they came. The current day Andhra which lies to the "North of the Tamil Country", was known as Vadadesa or Vadugavalli in the past. Unless explicitly stated by a source, one cannot take "vada" to mean "Northern India", or claim to be aryans or indo-aryan people "who once migrated from North India".

Additionally, the Journal of Asiatic Society, the Indo-British Historical Society, Robert Lester and several authors refer to Vadakalai and Thenkalai as northern and southern ‘Schools’; and not to ethnicity / race / origin.

Source [6] provided is Pg.132 Human Heredity, Karger., 1976. Google Books. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2011. It is a paper titled "Inbreeding among Some Brahman Populations of Tamil Nadu", by S.Srinivasan and D.P.Mukherjee. Contrary to Hari7478's claim, the quoted page 132 does not support that statement that "the two sects are distinctly different in origin". Source [6] does not even mention Thenkalais. So how can he use this source to make such a statement? Am reproducing the stated page 132 as follows:

The Vadama and the Vadagalai who belong to different sects, but have northern origin in common as indicated by the Tamil prefix Vada, and show the closest agreement in the frequencies of different types of earlobe and hand clasping among the Tamil Brahmans [Srinivasan and Mukherjee, 1974], are characterized by lower incidence of first cousin marriages and higher incidence of marriages between more distant relatives. There is a level of agreement in the levels of inbreeding among Tamil Brahmans, Ayyars and Ayyangars from different states (table II). But a regional influence is also indicated by the higher value of F in the Vadagalai sample from Andhra Pradesh and the lower value of F in the Ayyar sample from Kerala. The matrilineal tradition restricting maternal uncle-niece marriages in Kerala might, of course, have influenced the local Tamil Brahmans.

Issue # 3

A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar: "The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[8][9]"
Source [8] is The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India. Minerva Associates. 1976. pp. 283, 160. This is exactly the same as source [5], which is The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. I have reproduced the entire page 283 of this source above. I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from pages 283, 160 or any other part of the book where it says Vadakalais are Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.

Source [9] is given as "Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications." The author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book. So how can Hari7478 use this source to claim only Vadakalai Iyengars are an Indo-aryan people who once migrated from North India? Additionally, the stated source does not say Vadakalais “once migrated from North India”. Please ask Hari7478 to provide the correct page number where the book says so. Am reproducing the entire p.72 Nambudiri’s book below:

A detailed classification of the Tamil brahmins under the major heads smarta and vaishnava with many sub-sections under each major head is given below :-

1. Vadama 2. Kesigal 3. Brahacharanam 4. Vathima Madhama 5. Ashtasahasram 6. Dikshitar. Smarta 7. Sholiar 8. Mukkani 9. Kaniyalar 10. Sanketi 11. Prathamasaki 12. Gurukkal.

Vaisnava A. Vadagali (Northerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 2. Vaikhanasa 3. Pancaratra 4.Hebbar B. Thengalai (Southerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 4. Hebbar 2. Vaikhanasa 5. Mandya 3. Pancaratra

The Smartas: They are divided into 12 sub-divisions. The Vadamas claim to be superior to all other classes of Tamil speaking brahmins. The term Vadama signifies northerners. They are again divided into five sub-divisions, namely Coladesa, Vadadisa, Savayar, Inji and Thummagunta Dravida. All the above divisions and sub-divisions are endogamous except the Tambala brahmins who correspond to Gurukkal among the Tamil brahmins. The Vaidikis are superior to the Niyogis.

Issue # 4

A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar:
"In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[10] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[10]"

The source [10] quoted is a paper by Hameed et al. The said paper refers to an another paper (By Reddy et al) which had previously compared samples of 4 communities and found Rh(D) factor higher in the Vadakalai sample. Since Rh(D) in that study was found higher in people of Faisalabad Pakistan, the authors Hameed et al remarked that the similarity in frequency of Rhesus(D) genes “ can be attributed to the common history of these populations”. Fact is, the said paper does not even refer to Thengalais.

I had changed the sentence to correctly indicate what the paper mentions as follows: “A study on Rh(D) occurrence in 1980, amongst samples from members of Mala, Yerukula, Kapu and Vadagalai Iyengar in Andhra revealed that the incidence of Rhesus(D) was higher in Vadagalai Iyengars than the other 3 groups; with a similar high frequency of Rhesus(D) genes also found in people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.”

This, however, is unacceptable to Hari7478 who reverts the change. He insists on the talk page that there is an ethnic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Hari7478 has even used the ref name for the paper by Hameed, et al as ["ref name="Vadakalai Genetics"]. To him, the Vadakalai are Indo-Aryan people who migrated from Northern India. Let him get an appropriate source to substantiate it; instead of falsifying and misquoting papers.

This paper was formerly used by Hari7478 to mention that "the above mentioned genetic similarity between the vadakalai and the punjabis of pakistan portrays the Indo-aryan origin of the Vadakalai iyengars". However, now the direct mention has been omitted out, but the paper has been used by Hari7478 to cater to his claims of Vadagalai - Thengalai differentiation.

Previously, on my objection, Hari7478 deleted the source “Man in India: Volume 58, by Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur)” on cleft chin studies, which he had falsified to project a vadakalai - thenkalai differentiation. However, he has been reverting changes with the Hameed, et al paper. He is keen to portray a ‘genetic difference’ between Vadakalais and Thenkalais; and that Vadakalais are “indo-aryan people who once migrated from northern India”.

I object to Hari7478's constant falsification of sources to pass of his claims of “ethnicity, genetics and origin”. His disputed content as detailed above must be removed from the Iyengar, Vadakalai and Sri Sampradaya pages. Either he must agree for mediation to stop his misquoting of sources, or admin must intervene on this ANI page and ask him to provide correct sources for his statements. In event he does not respond to this report, he must be blocked from vandalizing the said pages. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

As I explained on your talk page, though, Mayasutra, part of the problem is your approach. After you removed a large chunk of info from Vadakalai, and Hari reverted you, then, per WP:BRD (our normal pattern for major edits), you should have gone to the talk page and laid out the concerns you had above. Instead, those claims ended up here on ANI, where, in fact, Hari shouldn't respond to them, since they're content matters. Both of you need to discuss more and revert less. Now, there may well be a problem of "falsifying sources", but we need to establish that first, somewhere (I'm assuming Hari will say that the info is in the source, or some way justify the text). Unless it's already certain that Hari was falsifying text, ANI really isn't a good place to solve the problem. So, in other words, both of you should get the hell off this board and get onto an article talk page and figure this stuff out; starting using content dispute resolution (dispute noticeboards, RfCs, etc.) and stop just trying to win by getting the other blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, both of you stop. Please remember that this noticeboard has the authority to place editing restrictions, and often when we find two users importing their content disputes to noticeboards, we just get annoyed and place some sort of interaction ban or topic ban on them. Did that get your attention? Good. Now here's what I strongly suggest you both do:
  • Stop accusing each other of things. There's bad blood on both sides of this, so we're not going to listen to one of you instead of the other. Pause and take some deep breaths, okay? Hari, the edit-warring matter's already been dealt with, and Mayasutra, there's no rule that you have to respond to ANI threads right away.
  • Stop arguing with people who are trying to help you. Especially with admins, since, let's be honest, it's never really a good idea to taunt someone who can block you in a matter of seconds, especially if you're already engaged in borderline personal attacks and tendentious editing all under the purview of an ArbCom decision.
  • The best thing I could advise is that you just stop fighting over what's in the past. Hari7478, you already made your case at AN3 (or was it here? I forget), so there's no need to make it again a few days later at AIV. We're supposed to all be here to build an encyclopedia, so I hope you can understand why editors get angry about anything that strikes them as a user pursuing a vendetta. So, anyways, if you two really want to make your content case, go ahead. ANI might not be the perfect noticeboard for it, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and this has been to enough noticeboards already. So, Mayasutra, if you really want to pursue your allegations of misquotation (which I advise against), please politely and succinctly explain them in a subsection here, and we can settle them once and for all. And then, Hari, you can politely and succinctly explain why these allegations are false. And that will be that; this will be the final decision on that matter. Future attempts to rehash it will almost definitely not be received well, so, whichever of you "loses" this dispute, you should just cut your losses and move on before people get pissed and start talking bans. Okay?
PinkAmpers, Very sorry about re-posting. Did so because Hari7478 was typically evading the issue and not responding. Also, because Boing felt requests will peter out if no admin feels sufficiently moved to do anything. I sincerely request the admin to please-please read thru the complaint fully and ask Hari7478 to respond specifically to the 4 issues raised and why should such content be allowed on wiki since they are his own fabrications / conclusions / falsifications by misquoting sources. I have no objection to using Edgar Thurston as a source. However, Hari7478 must provide which sentences from Thurston's source he intends to use and in what manner. Hari7478 also must explain why is he deleting my references from established academic sources, such as, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society and Robert Lester. I challenge him to prove his contentions on Hameed et al 's paper which he calls "Vadagalai genetics" to portray his so-called Indo-Aryan and northern India origin to Vadakalai brahmins. Hari7478 cites a different ethnic origin for Vadakalai brahmins separated from Thengalai brahmins -- I challenge him to prove references he provided actually say that. Please note: Hari7478 says a lot without addressing the point directly. Which IMO is very meandering. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


Ed Johnston, i know that i shouldn't have used the word peer during that discussion(that was a very silly mistake). I was in a hurry. It may seem as though i was unaware at first. But let me explain because that's definitely not the case(like what you think). When Sitush started the discussion on Thurston(namely "Edgar Thurston as a source"), it was about whether we keep Thurston's work or remove it from the Iyengar article, and it had nothing much to do with Mayasutra's claims at first. But the source has been cited in many other wiki pages on castes. Due to this, i was just explaining as to why the source can be kept. Though i tried hard for a secondary source, i couldn't find any recording of that project's information elsewhere. So i just helped them understand that the project(codification of various castes and tribes in India) was hailed by the article(one line praise). Also, a '92 article(didn't post a link to that) by the same Daily analyzed the chapters in depth, however not too deep into the finer contents. So i was about to suggest that "if there are still problems with the src(even i may disapprove of the project's howlers in some parts), we take it to WT:INB so that the decision on Castes & Tribes as a src would be applicable to all those wiki pages on Indian castes that have made use of Thurston's work". There are way too many of them cited in other wiki pages. Their removal in the Iyengar page may cause some disagreement among other editors(upon notification), and even if not, some vandal users in other pages may cite this(removal in the Iyengar pg) as a reason to make similar removals in the other pages too, especially when some other editors are supporting it. So, it was about either keeping it or removing it(but apparently that has a lot do with many other wiki pages too & not just the Iyengar page). But Mayasutra posted replies under that discussion with comments regardingthe Vadakalai vs Thenkalai issue, as you can see, because of which the main issue(raised by Sitush) was forgotten, due to a long message that followed. Realizing Sitush's extensive knowledge on caste related sources & reliablity of sources, I've always abided by Sitush's decisions, but sometimes i've given a few suggestions too and Sitush has agreed about keeping some of them(on two occassions). Even Sitush has edited my revision & that specific section, but has mostly been keeping my contributions. He analyzed the whole page. Even another admin'(someone whom i invited for an assessment) made some minor changes to the disputed section, but chose to keep my contributions after a few clarifications from my part(some time ago). Pinkampersand - this message is just a clarification to Ed Jonhston's message. This is not a complaint. Its just a clarification to Ed Jonhston's concerns. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hari7478, Main issue is not Sitush or Thurston. Already explained on Iyengar talk page i have no prob with Thurston as a source. Stop meandering around. Address specifically the 4 issues raised - -explain why you have misquoted those sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


PinkAmpers and Ed Johnston, After reporting me for Page protection and Vandalism, now Hari7478 has reported me for being a Sockpuppet of Fastnfurious -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mayasutra IMO, Hari7478 is merely evading the main issue and is misusing wiki machinery. Is there someway to get Hari7478 to respond here wrt to the 4 issues raised instead of meandering about? Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


┌─────────────────────────────────┘

As I've tried to mediate in conflicts concerning this article on and off for two years, and as the edit wars have being going on for even longer, it would seem to me that there is no realistic hope that these disputes will be resolved. There have been numerous attempts to settle matters, such as my notice to the administarors' noticeboard in February 2011 and a series of other ANI cases and the likes. Most have involved Hari7478, but there is no reason to assume that s/he alone is the source of these animosities, even though this particular user seems to have exhibited an ownership attitude towards the article, not heeding warnings to that effect.

Furthermore, a number of administrators have already tried to resolve this matter for years, both by calls for consensus and cooperation, sanctions and imposing page protections. Since none of this has had any lasting effect and no foreseeable resolution seems possible, I suggest the following two remedies:

  • The page content is reset to the state it was in previous to the last edit made by either of these editors.

I'm aware this may seem like a harsh measure, but please bear in mind that there is little or no hope that any of these editors will make any worthwile additions to the page, and that both have exhibited behaviour that would indicate they lack the necessary neutral point of view to make further amends to the subject.

For the record: I have no opionion(s) as to the subject matter of the Iyengar entry, and the majority of disagreements are completely incomprehensible to me, such as "factual data which proves the Thenkalai is the more prevelant sampradhya" and "unneccessarily swapping contents by moving thenkalai section ahead of vadakalai." My only involvement in the dispute originates in a request to OTRS to intervene in an ongoing edit war in 2011. If need be, I'll supply links to my earlier attempts at reconciliation and warnings. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 17:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rigged votes/WP:MEAT violation[edit]

Please help. The article MUD_trees was nominated for deletion, but the votes were rigged by "MUD" owners who listed their MUD on the page, as you can see on their forum here: http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/tavern-blue-hand/5287-defense-all-muds-our-genres-noteworthiness-being-questioned-16.html EternalFlare (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Even as a non-admin close, this wasn't a controversial interpretation of the discussion that took place, and while several of the comments were plainly canvassed there were also multiple comments from established editors which expressed the same sentiments. You could ask for it to be relisted at WP:DRV on the grounds that it was a NAC unduly influenced by cancassed opinions, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I have requested that the user involved in the closure re-nominate the article for deletion for multiple reasons. It should be noted that Sue Rangell (talk · contribs) has been advised on at least 2 occasions this month to be exceptionally careful with their Non-Admin Closures. I will not make any recommendations regarding how we can improve the AfD closures as I am one of the ones who has previously complained about their NACs. Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I think she can just revert her closure, and then relist. I've suggested it to her. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Why would you do that, Hasteur? Would you have done the same if it were an admin? I can't imagine any sane editor, admin or not, would not come to a "keep" from that discussion. There seems to be a recent trend of "OHMYGOODNESS NAC MUST SCREAM" that is both counterproductive and highly unpleasant. It's a solid keep. Get over it. Trouts to EternalFlare for bringing it here and Hasteur for encouraging such nonsence. --Nouniquenames 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
And you should know that there's a certain threshold that users need to be warned to not do dumb things. So, please don't make it about me... Hasteur (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing dumb was done in the AfD close, though. The threshold was not met. --Nouniquenames 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Have to completely disagree with Hasteur's actions here. The NAC closer had not participated in the discussion, and the discussion was such a landslide of policy-based keeps (with one option to "keep or merge") that it was one of the snowiest possible closes - exactly the type that NAC's are for. Why in any deity's name you would bust their chops for the right close based on all evidence is beyond me. Seriously Hasteur - give your head a little shake, please (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The link in the OP clearly shows meatpuppetry going on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
But any AFD intelligent closer can see that at least a couple of the !voters are not meatpuppets - and those commentators left intelligent, policy-based commentary. In any AFD close, the close eliminates the meat and SPA very quickly. So, based on the remaining !votes, it's still a pretty obvious keep - hence the close is still correct. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There was no mention of meatpuppeting in either the AfD or in the NAC rationale so I think the evidence suggests that the closer did not know about it and did not take it into account (i.e. she did not quickly eliminate meat/SPA). If she did know that the AfD was tainted then I think that would be a warning sign not to make an NAC. As Hasteur points out, she's been repeatedly asked not to perform ones that are controversial and meatpuppetry is definitely a controversy-stirring issue if you close in favor of the meatpuppets. I give Sue the benefit of the doubt here and believe that she didn't know about the off-wiki shenanigans. So her close was fine given what she knew at the time. But now that new evidence has come to light I think requesting that she re-open was also proper. If she sees the notes on her talk page, in fact, I'm sure she'll do just that. If she misses them, though, then this should go to DRV per Chris Cunningham. -Thibbs (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that's really an obnoxious thread to read. Textbook meatpuppetry and apparent lynchmob efforts made to harass and out the original nom by a crew of conspiracy-minded forum dwellers who seem to find the rules here inscrutable. Asking Sue Rangell to re-open her NAC was certainly appropriate but she seems to be on strike due to the recent loss of her rollback privileges (or maybe she's just taking a WikiBreak™, who knows). So I think DRV is the best move. Given the participation in the AfD I wouldn't bet on a different outcome, but the AfD was clearly tainted. -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
(EC) While I agree the offsite canvassing (seemingly resurrected from the same thing in 2010) is rather unfortunate particularly given some of the comments there, it seems to me that's largely separate from the appropriateness of the NAC. From what I can tell, most of the people there were fairly established wikipedians, so I don't think there's reason to think the closer missed anything that an admin wouldn't have. And I don't think there's any suggestion the closer came from the forum. Now that the off-site canvassing has been brought to light, we could revisit the closure itself, but it seems to me even with the canvassing, there's no way a delete is coming from that so the options are either keep it as keep, relist or close as 'no consensus'. If people feel this is worth considering they could open a DRV or ask the closer about it (but again it doesn't imply the closer made an inappropriate close). The only other thing is whether we have to do anything about the canvassing particularly in light of some of the comments. I would say no, since it seems they now accept canvassing is not acceptable even if they don't all agree with it. And if anything does come from the threats we can take action about those then. Similarly, if the harassment continues, we could look at what, if anything, we can do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That's sensible, Nil Einne. Just for the record we should note that EternalFlare had recently (on January 27) been charged with sockpuppetry at this declined SPI (without an accompanying user talk warning). I'm still assuming good faith in all the actors at this point, but certainly if this rises to the level of harassment then steps will have to be taken to curb it. -Thibbs (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of personal attacks by ʍaunus[edit]

Withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Report withdrawn by Darkness Shines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 30 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.

ʍaunus has twice[44][45] restored personal attacks to the talk page of Rape culture‎. The attacks, made by Handyunits imply I am a racist I am accused of bulling & pushing an agenda. Handyunits has also accused me of "trollish behaviour" and of being "disruptive"[46]. All I have done is comment on the RFC HU started[47] and I do not see how my comments can be called disruptive. I require that the personal attacks be removed and both ʍaunus & HU be reminded that personal attacks should not be made, nor restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You picked apart their posts and removed the parts you didn't like. I would revert that too. There's no need to mess with someone else's posts like that. If you think those parts violated WP:NPA, then you could've just said so and asked for the parts to be struck/removed.--Atlan (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
What person