Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785

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

Noticeboard archives



Wasiahmad3 (talk · contribs), who has been notified, has only made edits to Wikipedia space to promote an organization. Block/warn? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've warned them for promotion, with no prejudice against further action. —Rutebega (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Fry's civility unblock condition(s) has(ve) been extended 6 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 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.

Fry1989's unblock conditions state that he must not comment on individual editors. "contradicting yourself", "you're blind", "you imply ... a dishonest stretch", "your question is completely facetious", [DrKiernan's comments are] "the most preposterous thing I have ever seen" and an admission that he holds me in contempt are all essentially comments on an editor. Instead of trying to wriggle out of his civility restrictions by saying these are comments on arguments rather than people,[1] shouldn't he be making an effort to avoid any comment that can be construed or misread as a breach? If these are not breaches, may I suggest an extension of the remaining unblock condition for a further 6 months? I am not aware of any breaches of the two expired unblock conditions (on edit summaries and reverts) and so assume that these conditions have been met. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Clear break of the civility restriction, and then flat-out lying when confronted with it. Re-block and extend WP:OFFER (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree (sigh). The first diff says a source is contradicting you. The second one is subjective and certainly battleground mentality but I think it falls short of a personal attack. "You must think Emma Stone is hot, unless your blind." It's more of a "how could you miss that" rather than "your an idiot." Third one, I think you're being dishonest by using ellipsis instead of the comma. It changes the context completely. Four diff, he is talking about your question and not you. Fifth diff, same opinion as fourth. Last diff, big whoop. I hold several people in contempt.

    All that said, he's displaying a battleground mentality that is clearly against the spirit of the unblock conditions and I'd support a block.--v/r - TP 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to talk about lying (simply pointing out a fact here), I have never actually called anybody "blind" (read the link), or any sort of attack that has been interpreted as such. I already acknowledged to another user how my words could be seen in that manner of being attacks, but that was not my intent. Yes I commented on other users, but in the context of replying to their replies in what is a very difficult and heated discussion. Anyhow, I'm not gonna keep fighting an uphill battle, do as you wish. Block me for a while, don't block me for a while, make me stay away from certain things, it doesn't matter at this point cause I give up. Fry1989 eh? 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The WP:DGAF to ANI approach, eh? You'd be better off just apologizing and offering to try harder. I already made your arguments for you.--v/r - TP 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
No it's not the DGAF approach, it's a capitulation because I've tried very hard to follow my restrictions, and while yes I break them some times it's not intentional. I'm sorry, is that what you want to hear? That I'm sorry for insulting people when that wasn't my intent? I have a flair for hyperbole, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone at sight. Yes I'm sorry that I broke the spirit of my restrictions, and I said block me or don't, cause it's hardly my choice, but I have no interest in fighting this AN/I because there's no point. I made a mistake and should have been more restrained, what happens because of that is my fault. Fry1989 eh? 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As long as you acknowledge (which you just did), redact, and try to stifle the hyperbole a bit (I do it too, so don't think you're alone) then I think we can shake hands and move on. Can't we, Dr Kiernan?--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. But I do think it wise to extend the remaining unblock condition for a further period because the other two unblock conditions appear to have worked, and so I feel it likely that the third condition might work if it is given more time. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I was heavily involved in the unblock conditions. Fry1989 has significant control problems, as he himself acknowledges here and has acknowledged in the past. His latest comments may or may not be a breach of civility, but they do more than violate the "spirit" of the civility condition. As Dr.Kiernan pointed out in the beginining, they breach the second bullet point of the civility condition, "commenting on individual editors". I agree with Dr.Kiernan that the remaining block condition should be extended; that certainly beats an indefinite block, which is what a violation of the condition provides.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That seems fair and reasonable.--v/r - TP 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair, yes. However, Fry cannot expect this to happen again. This is not a 3-strikes situation. Reset the 6 months. The NEXT one is it; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point, Bwilkins, but a lot of discussion and effort went into these condtions by User:Amatulic (the lion's share), Fry, me, and by Dr.Kiernan, who, as I recall, was the most aggrieved by some of Fry's conduct. As Dr.Kiernan says above, progress has been made, and the principal goal should be to foster improvement. My sense - then and now - is that Fry is an honest person who sincerely wants to improve his conduct. Strictly speaking, a lapse should result in an indefinite block, but if being a bit more flexible resolves the problem and retains a useful editor, I think we should be open to that. I'm waiting to hear what Fry has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we're arguing the same point here ... aren't we? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think so, but if you do, I'm good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was I asked a direct question? I'm doing a training thing today so I'm in and out. Now this is obviously not the only reason I'm here today, I have troubles with other users at time too, but DrKiernan is the elephant in my situation. He and I are like cats and dogs, and I've made it no secret I don't want to be involved with him, and I've put in every effort recently to avoid it. I don't watch his talk page and I don't edit things he's active on. He however followed me on to that discussion uninvited by myself or the others involved. He has also followed me around on other things I'm involved with, and on Commons. I suggested some time ago an interaction ban between the two of us and that was called premature. Now is any of this an excuse for things I have said? Absolutely not, but it is the reality that he and I can not work together collegially, and I hold resentment about it because every time we do interact, our butting heads blows up and then I have to deal with this. It's happened three times, and I'm as tired of it as anybody else. This is not an attempt to skew the issue and change the subject, it is a part of this problem that we don't get along, and I've put in all my effort to avoid him. Can he say the same? I said what I said, it was wrong, it broke the spirit of my restrictions, I take accountability for it, but it never would have gotten that far if he and I didn't fight every time we encounter each other. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── All in all, Fry, I don't think your comments are helpful. I haven't looked at the recent history, so I can't comment on DrKiernan's involvement, but what you call following you around may simply be that some of your interests intersect, and there's no reason that DrKiernan should not be able to express their opinion on a particular topic if they do it in a reasonable manner. More important, if you know that you have problems interacting with DrKiernan, then you should either pay more attention when you do so you don't violate your unblock conditions or you should walk away from it if you can't behave. Despite your disclaimer, I think you're looking at this a bit backwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re TParis, unless I'm missing something, personal attacks don't come in to it. The unblock conditions say they must not comment on individual editor except in appropriate noticeboards. It doesn't say anything about personal attacks. I presume this condition, while harsh, was imposed because the community or whoever no longer trusts them to comment on editors and/or to avoid disputes oer what sort of comments on editors are acceptable. In other words, if any of these are comments on editors, it doesn't matter if they →are positive, innocous, borderline personal attacks or clear cut personal attacks they're clearly a violation. Now if the comments are genuinely positive and didn't cause any offene to the editors cncerned, it would be foolish to block them. But if and editor does disagree with comments on them, it would seem we have a problem. I haven't looked at the comments so can't say whether the comments are bad. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
My summary of the diffs is that they were not talking about Dr. K but about their comments; with the exception of diff 2 maybe. However, what I see is discussion. Unless you consider "your source contradicts you" to be about a person and not the source then I don't think the letter of the sanction is violated. Which is why I said the spirit of it was. Context helps with the diffs provided, and in the case of the third diff, an ellipsis is used instead of a comma which doesn't make sense to me other than to change the context. The comma takes less characters and is actually in the diff. It splits the sentence. If you disagree, that's fine, it's just my take and my take has seemed to lead us down the path to deescalation.--v/r - TP 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
(@Bbb23) Unhelpful? Maybe, and it wouldn't be the first time my outlook has been wrong, but I am simply stating how I feel. If there's one indisputable fact here, it's that he and I don't play nice together. You can blame the reasons for that on one of us or both, but it remains a fact. I have said before many times that I want him to "leave me alone" (infact I have quite loudly exclaimed it on my talk page), I asked for an interaction ban (that was not even given consideration), and I've put in my due effort to avoid him. But somehow, DrKiernan seems to quite frequently "drop by" on pages I'm involved with where he has had absolutely no previous involvement and was not invited by anybody. Recently it has been happening on Commons as well, where DrKiernan is rarely active. You'll forgive me if I doubt the serendipity of it. I accept what I said and that it was inappropriate, but unless you have had as frequent and negative of interactions with a signle user as I have had with DrKiernan, please don't be so quick to reject the notion as me overreacting. As for the suggestion that I should unilaterally "move on" if he comes into something I'm involved in, surely you understand the implications of that, giving him to power to just impose himself on anything I'm working on forcing me to leave. I don't like that suggestion, and I don't think any other user who feels like their being followed around would like it either. Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Fry, in my view and in the view of some others (perhaps not TP), you have violated the civility conditions of your unblock. Some of the diffs DrKiernan set forth are weaker than others, but there's enough there to constitute more than one violation. Thus, even if you could demonstrate that DrKiernan is hounding you (that's essentially what you're claiming), it wouldn't do you a bit of good if we hold you to your conditions. As TP said (implied?) earlier, you should be focused on finding a way to continue editing here. Shifting the focus to DrKiernan won't help you. If you feel so strongly that DrKiernan is hounding you, then separately you should be asking for some sort of sanctions, an interaction ban or whatever you believe is appropriate. Now is not the time to be doing that unless you are simply so frustrated that you don't care, but most of us know that allowing present frustration to interfere with our long-term desire to edit here is generally self-defeating. Venting may provide some satisfaction, but it's transient and yet you're stuck with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't really know the background of Fry1989's restrictions on editing, but what I have witnessed at talk:union badge of Norway and Sweden strikes me as obviously disruptive behavior. Fry has been debating rather ferociously about an article title which is based primarily on personal opinion, not what sources actually say. I can't say I've seen outright personal attacks, but there's plenty of civility gray zones, and above all a tendency of completely disregarding other editor's arguments in favor of home-brewed theories and interpretations. You can see the result for yourself at the article talkpage, but the latest of Fry's edits is very indicative of highly belligerent form of interaction.[2] Peter Isotalo 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Attacks on the validity of my points by calling them "home-brewed theories" (alongside other names I've had to endure) like I'm some conspiracy crackpot is why I'm here in the first place, and I greatly resent your use of the term. Instead of people being willing to discuss my sources and points, they accused me of making things up, and saying that "this word was never use now or ever!" even though I have a very clear sources saying the opposite. It is the shear frustration from being ganged up on like that which causes my ferocity. You don't have to condone the way I carry on my arguments on that page (something I have not attempted to do here in my own defence), but don't pretend I do it just because that's "how I am". It takes a lot to cause me to be so angry and negative. There's plenty of examples of me carrying on arguments in a civil, even cheerful, manner. I have the ability to be very pleasant, polite, and helpful, but when people start accusing me of lying and making things up, that's when my effort to be friendly goes out the door. As for my last edit you linked, no where is there a rule I have to agree with someone. That was completely civil, I said "you can think what you want, but I'm gonna think what I want". Tell me how that is belligerent to "agree to disagree", which is essentially what I said? Fry1989 eh? 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Fry, I am very close to getting you a slap on the wrist and a gentle shove to be on your way instead of an indefinite block. For Pete's sake, don't screw it up.--v/r - TP 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I've made it clear I have no interest in continuing on that page any longer. I said that they can think what they want, and I'll stick to what I think, essentially "agree to disagree", and I've stated on my talk page that I will no longer be engaging on that article's talk page. But calling my sources and points "home-brewed theories" was out of order. Decide what you want to do about me, and I'll accept and deal with it accordingly, but if you're worried of me screwing it up by continuing to an unreceptive crowd, you'll be happy to know that will not take place. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restrictions are put into place to improve Wikipedia, not be tripwire sanctions used in content disputes. As TP has already elucidated, the diffs presented are very ticky tacky to be indeffing an editor over. Looking at the history, it appears Fry was editing the article and talk page long before DrK, and DrK raised the restriction two weeks ago on the talk page and yet continued to engage Fry. The issue isn't really Fry's incivility but their tendentious editing, but as there was no support for his position all that was required was to let them have the last word, but since DrK was "fed up" instead a motley collection of diffs has been presented to indef Fry over not very much. Let's just agree it's time for Fry to move on from that issue and be done with this. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with the above. The dispute seemed mostly on topic, and appears to have burnt itself out, somewhat. I apologise if I am interjecting inappropriately. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite agree. The dispute was technically on topic, but it also involved Fry being "angry and negative" about people simply disagreeing. I'm not pushing for a indefinite ban, but I consider the behavior surrounding union badge of Norway and Sweden disruptive enough to deserve a warning.
Peter Isotalo 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
indeed. A more severe sanction would appear counterproductive, and would demotivate an otherwise productive editor with a good editorial history on a relatively specialised topic. Irondome (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where we are. We almost got to a point of agreeing that there would be no block but there would be a 6-month extension of the civility condition(s). However, Fry did not voluntarily agree to that, and it's not clear to me there's a consensus for it. I believe there was a consensus that Fry violated the unblock conditions (DrK, me, BWilkins, Sandstein, TP (spirit)), but not necessarily a consensus as to the remedy. I believe the only editor who disagrees is NE. The two editors who commented after NE follow up on his characterization of Fry's behavior as "tendentious editing", but although they appear to agree that a block is unwarranted (one wants a warning, one doesn't), they do not really address the issue of the violation. I should point out that a consensus isn't required to block Fry, but given the lengthy discussion, I'm not sure that any admin wants to take that step without a consensus. I know I don't at this juncture, although I am not happy with some of Fry's responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. I meant I agreed with the mildest sanction available, if that is the consensus. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • My feelings lean toward the lowest possible sanction that ensures this does not happen again. Fry says he has a "flair for hyperbole" and that needs to be controlled by him (as I said to him, I deal with it too, personally). If a block is the lowest remedy, then so be it, I'll support it if that's the case. If an extension of the conditions and a stern warning and commitment to control himself, that would be preference. I trust you, as you have all of the history behind you, to make a good decision. I'm not sure how involved you are, but if your only involvement is the previous block then I'm fine with you taking action.--v/r - TP 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As suggested, and to make my side clear, I'll reiterate that I accept I have broken the spirit of my restrictions before their expiration, and that it wasn't acceptable. My intent and the way things can be seen by others are two separate things, and I need to hold a tighter tongue. As for a remedy, I have no objection to an extension of the restrictions I agreed to, because outside of this incident they have assisted me greatly. If a temporary block is decided on, I'll deal with it, and if not I'll be thankful. Fry1989 eh? 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The unblock conditions, while well-intentioned, have turned out, in practice, to be problematic; I've suggested modifications on their talk page. NE Ent 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read, understand, and have no objection. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Before Fry's latest posts and NE's suggested revisions, I proposed a resolution at Fry's talk page. We now have two discussions going on, one there and one here. Based on Fry's response above after TP's post, I believe that we could have finished this as it pretty much did everything I asked him to do on his talk page. However, partly based on my bias for simplicity and partly because I don't agree with NE's suggested revisions (at this point I'm not going to go into why), I have advised Fry (on his talk page) that I prefer NOT to implement any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with NE's suggestions. My primary concern is that in the course of discussion with another user, two way communication requires the use of 2nd person language and I am concerned that such use is considered "talking about someone." As long as we're clear that talking to someone and talking about someone's comments is not the same as talking about someone, then I think we can continue with the current wording.--v/r - TP 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • While I'm waiting to close this, I thought I'd respond to your comment, with which I agree, with a simplistic example of a hypothetical Fry communication: Acceptable: "I don't agree with John Doe's changes to the article because the source is unreliable." Unacceptable: "John Doe's changes to the article are dumb because the source is unreliable."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
        • The second one is the gray area that concerns me. It's saying the changes are dumb. I might be over-analyzing and the 2nd one certainly violates the spirit of the rule, but I'd say the existing rules cover "John Doe is dumb because the source is unreliable."--v/r - TP 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I intentionally phrased the unaccceptable example the way I did (as opposed to "John Doe is dumb", which I think is clear-cut) for two reasons. First, I wanted to err on the side of avoiding problems for Fry in the future. The unacceptable example is gray, and I didn't want to get into an endless battle later on wikilawyering such a phrase to death. Second, I think editors generally should avoid the second example. It's true that you're not calling the editor dumb, you're calling their actions dumb, and one can be smart and still do something dumb, but saying something someone does is dumb is often a politically correct proxy for calling them dumb. Moreover, it's simply not necessary. There's no reason why everyone can't convey their point using the acceptable example.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
            • That's fine with me, but let's make sure that Fry understands that's what is intended then.--v/r - TP 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Agreed. I'm fairly certain Fry is paying attention to all the comments, but depending on the outcome, which is now less clear, we can make sure he understands. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • In John Doe's changes to the article are dumb John Doe's is a possessive determiner modifying the noun "changes"; thus the crux of the sentence is changes are dumb which is assuredly not referring to another contributor. Which just goes to show how, agreements that seem reasonable when agreed to often, in practice, become difficult to implement when the penalty is so all or nothing. NE Ent 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remedy. I've revised the unblock conditions, the effect of which is to extend the civility conditions an additional 6 months from their current expiration date. I'll leave this thread open in case someone notices a mistake. I've also asked Fry to look at them. Assuming there's no error, this discusion will be closed (with thanks for everyone's help).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    Apologies - I'm overseas and have limited time to access Wikipedia. As one of the authors of the civility restrictions, I agree that their interpretation (while seeming clear at the time) have become problematic. I believe that further exploration of clarifying the restrictions should be explored as NE Ent has done. The restrictions weren't intended as a hair-trigger re-block mechanism. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    At this point, I'd still like to close this incident with the revised conditions. They don't involve a block, and they put to rest this incident and this thread. In addition, there's no reason why the conditions can't be revised again based on NE's suggestions - or anyone else's - to make them clearer and/or fairer. That said, based on your comment, I'm not closing this now. I want to see if there's agreement on closing first. I will be going off-wiki soon, so I probably won't be around until late afternoon tomorrow (American Pacific time). It seems dubious to me that there will be agreeement to close this before I go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Restoring from archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion was archived due to inactivity. Unfortunately, it left Fry in limbo as I'd revised their unblock conditions, which are still outstanding. I am going to close this now as resolved based on the revised unblock conditions. Per TP's comment above, I will let Fry know of the closure and make sure he "understands that's what is intended". If Amatulic or NE wants to re-raise the issue of revising the conditions further, they are welcome to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 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.

Wikipedia:Civility and user DCB4W[edit]

OP blocked, WP:BOOMERANG strikes again. Swarm X 04:45, 6 February 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.

DCB4W Removes "systemic bias" tag without consensus. Behaves "bossy" threatens to others in ultimatum form ("I'll check back in 48 hours before I remove the tag again"). Please take measures. (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Provide citations that prove systematic bias or quit restoring the tag. If you think it's an English problem, find Russian sources that paint a different picture and prove it. Your personal expertise is not going to prove anything here.--v/r - TP 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Asking for a citation in the situation of systemic bias shows deep misunderstanding of the systemic bias issue. Please familiarize yourself with the essence of it and with the ways to counter it. (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore if you have looked carefully, you would have spotted the "Second and most important. The Spanish and Russian articles about the subject ( the actual involving parties ) have no such negative flavour about soviet involvement. Only the English has it. What other reference do you really need as the poof? Both Spanish and Russian pages have plenty of references. (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking the personality of TP, I believe it would be better if some other admin who is not an american jingoist would look into the issue (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pre-striking" a personal attack doesn't make it not a personal attack. You've had final warnings for personal attacks (and played the "jingoism" card [3]) before [4] - one more comment like that and you will be blocked. "Countering systemic bias" does not equal "pushing WP:POV from the other side". - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. Go to the user page and see it yourself. (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The word "Jingo" nor any variation of it are not on the linked userpage. gwickwiretalkedits 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Now look at the photo. They do look like a right candidate to counter systemic bias, don't they? Though maybe you are right, maybe the word has more negative meaning in it than i thought. I'd appreciate if you could enrich my vocabulary with the correct one. (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Some would call that statement a bigoted one. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Some would get a nice reddish final warning from The Bushranger, won't they? Or does The Bushranger manipulate the rules however it pleases them in a certain situation? (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Well, if some people are making personal attacks, boomeranging on AN/I, and misinterpreting rules, then those people truly deserve warnings before they get themselves blocked. Hint hint, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh i forgot! those are only the other people who misinterpret rules! I see... May you please leave me without your comments? I've already got your threats point. You don't have to repeat it. Really. (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as you were already on your final warning for personal attacks, I was pointing out that you were the bigoted one with that statement, and instead of a "nice reddish final warning" you could easily have, instead of my comment being made there, been immediately blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"Countering systemic bias" does not equal "pushing WP:POV from the other side".
Yeah, right. The fact that the Spanish and Russian pages about the subject do not have the strong negative flavour really doesn't indicate the systemic bias issue. It's just my POV. Sure. (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, possibly, the Spanish and Russian pages are the ones that are not neutral? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, most likely. Taking that the article uses subjective assessments, rather than facts, it is very likely that it is NPOV and has no bias at all!
After all censorship and brainwashing exists only in the other countries, not in my beloved one, right? (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. And if you have spotted the stricken "who is not an american jingoist" what has forced you to step in and try to resolve the issue? The fact that it was stricken? But you have said yourself that it doesn't count. (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I said that it did count. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice warning you have put on my page, The Bushranger, thank you! I wonder will DCB4W get the same treatment for clearly bulling others? (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If there was any bullying to warn about, I would. This isn't bullying. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh really? Let me cite Wikipedia:Civility for you: "Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully. Talking in ultimatum form and removing a tag, which clearly says Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved. is not a bulling at all! It's pinnacle of civility and rule abidance! (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Quoting the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved.". If there is no issue to resolve, there is no prohibition to removing the tag. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the consensus that was reached on the talk page. Please cite it to me. Or simply ignoring the inconvenient parts of reality, and pretending like there is no issue at all ( your style ) is the right way to go? "The neutrality of this article is not questioned on the basis of systemic bias at all! There is no discussion at the talk page at all, no. Not even a word about it. hmm... this tag must have been putted here wrong. I shall go bold about it!" (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) This IP really needs to calm down and stop making personal attacks, or they will certainly find a block n' boomerang heading their way. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Your threats are really important. thank you! (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I do so love when people complain about bullying and behaving "bossy," using bossy, bullying tones to do so. I'm heartily in favor of this boomeranging IP being sat down for a nice block. Ravenswing 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't speak in ultimatum tone to others. I do not threat to others. I do not remove tag which clearly says "Do not remove". (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't intend that as an ultimatum at all. I just didn't want to get into a reversion war and I figured that two days would give other editors plenty of time to come up with sources in support of the tag. (I don't speak Spanish or Russian, so I couldn't go looking at the corresponding articles myself.) I was actually giving some thought to asking for a third opinion, which still might not be a bad idea. (Arguably, I was the third opinion, since the dispute started between the IP address and Grandiose. As best I can tell, Grandiose and Kevin Murray actually attempted to address some of the IP's concerns more than a month ago.) DCB4W (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition, the IP claims that DCB4W violated WP: CIV, when he nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, he was acting correctly in favor of WP: BRD. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah being bold is clearly applicable to something which says "Do not remove" on it! Screw it! Just be bold and remove. (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Quoting the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved.". If there is no issue to resolve, there is no prohibition to removing the tag. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the consensus that was reached on the talk page. Please cite it to me. Or simply ignoring the inconvenient parts of reality, and pretending like there is no issue at all ( your style ) is the right way to go? "The neutrality of this article is not questioned on the basis of systemic bias at all! There is no discussion at the talk page at all, no. Not even a word about it. hmm... this tag must have been putted here wrong. I shall go bold about it!" (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There's discussion. The only people claiming bias are you, and a SPA that has made no other edits ever. The GA rereviewer only "failed" it on neutrality based on the tag - everyone else there believes there is no issue; the only one claiming this issue is you. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "unanimous opinion", nor does it mean "what I want". - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to block IP[edit]

Proposal - just block the IP and be done with it. There is a limit to patience and understanding, and s/he clearly doesn't want to discuss this. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"clearly" I am the one who does not want to discuss. Just goes bold and removes something which says "do not remove" on it without seeking a consensus at the talk page. It is absolutely clear indeed! (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Just went to your page and noticed the "This user assumes good faith." userbox. Are you serious? (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The IP clearly and delibratley violated WP: NPA and is obviously WP: NOTHERE. Time for him/her to sit out for a while and learn the basic principles of our site. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support he/she shares the views we all don't like. Let's find some false accusation to have a formal excuse to get rid of the bastard. (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support - per the IP's behavior on the discussion above, clearly a POV-pushing SPA with no tolerance for the views of others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support block since the IP doesn't seem to understand how the neutral point of view is achieved on Wikipedia. He has yet to present a single source for alternate viewpoints, and just rails against everyone (both sources and editors) who disagree with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Anybody can see the discussion isn't going anywhere; classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Hopefully he'll read up on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT while he's blocked. —Rutebega (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. In addition to all of the above, this indicates clearly that this editor is here on a mission and is not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • IP blocked. The unacceptable behavior is self-evident and there's no reason to waste too much of our time dealing with this. Swarm X 04:41, 6 February 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.


Tagremover has the prerogative to remove any personal attack and issue warnings at his own discretion. Admin action is not necessary and absolutely nothing productive will come of this discussion, so I'm nipping it in the bud. —Rutebega (talk) 04:11, 6 February 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.

Although its some time ago, this WP:NPA comment is visible. [5] It should be removed and User:Marteau should have consequences. Tagremover (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am to be censured for calling Tagremover "insufferable" so be it. "Insufferable" means "intolerable"... I could in fact no longer tolerate his behavior and I did in fact quit editing the article because of him, and I will in fact not edit any article with which he is involved. Marteau (talk) 04:04, 6 February 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:Daan0001 and edits to closed AfD[edit]

This user has twice inserted comments into the closed discussion notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunday: diff1, diff2, the second time after being asked to desist: [6] and with an edit summary of "How dare u undo my comment ???)". AllyD (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They were on my radar from WP:REFUND - their actions caused a salting of Gunday, and now also their attempt to circumvent that Salt. Brief block for disruption for the continual recreation AND disrupting the closed AFD (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


WP:DFTT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Admins, I need your help with this user. He is extremely rude, and I say so as he removes content from articles without a reason, snubs others' welcome, place rude message on his own talk page, then talk rudely to me on my talk page. Thanks for your help. :) Arctic Kangaroo 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins, please check his conribs and talk page to verify what he says. Thanks a lot. Arctic Kangaroo 10:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I have offered to explain his mistakes to him, but he snubbed my offer, saying that I was "unsincere". Arctic Kangaroo 10:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No amount of being polite could have done anything. He's a troll, and he's been blocked forever. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

However, I should clarify that he Watching did not remove content from any articles. He only removed content from his own talk page, which is perfectly permitted. It is quite poor form to revert war with an editor in his own userspace. It would not have made any difference in this case, as he was here to cause trouble, but please don't do it in the future. If you think an editor is creating a problem on in their own userspace, bring it here. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. edit. Not an article, but not his own talk page either. Doc talk 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out, Doc. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, my mistake. I was trying to say he removed a barnstar which he did not award from another user's talk page. Also, another user has told me not to restore deleted content on others' talk. So, later part I gave up to remove his talk page stuff. But the explanation part, I was just trying to give him a chance to change, before I concluded him as a troll. Arctic Kangaroo 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
General procedure is that if users remove content from their talk page, they are assumed to have read and understood what was said. So if you put increasingly escalating {{uw-vandalism}} warnings on his talk page, and he deletes them, just go to WP:AIV with the diffs and if he gets blocked, he can't say he didn't get fair warning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
He wasn't even given a chance, and now he can't even contest the block. All he wanted was for three users to stop posting on his talkpage. He didn't want help from this Arctic Kangaro, but AK wouldn't leave him alone. When AK was told not to offer his help, he came here out of spite. Good job, another potential editor lost. Rubbish like this is why I stopped contributing here. (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
A belligerent editor opens an account and is already familiar with ANI and Wikipedia Review. That's not a potential editor - it's a troll. Some of the evidence is only visible to administrators, so you can't be blamed for not seeing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Marteau: Please could someone check if Watchingeveryevent is a sockpuppet of User:Marteau? Tagremover (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so that is what it is? Because he knew about wikipedia review? That explains why you took the unilateral actions of deleting both his user page and talk page, as well as imposing an indefinite block and removing his ability to contest the block. It isn't about beligerence at all, it's because he knew how things worked here. Sad. I genuinely believe that given the chances he/she would have been a good editor, that is why things like mentorship exist. As for knowing about ani, it isn't that hard. This isn't some sort of hidden page that only a select few have access to. The way I see it is this; the user wasn't familiar with how we deal with things here, so he reacted badly to a welcome message. Then, another group of users decided to pile onto them, posting repeated warnings, then reposting them despite being asked not to do so. It seems that the same group of users were also deleting his messages to other users explaining why he was being so beligerant, including one here the user says they are willing to be helped, but not by Arctic Kangaroo, which is not what I would call unreasonable given that Arctic Kangaroo and his group of friends refused to leave them alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
So he "knew how things worked here", or "wasn't familiar with how we deal with things here". Which is it? Doc talk 11:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is this 'new' IP commenting on behalf of this blocked user...? GiantSnowman 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I see a lot of new users from hanging out on the AFC Helpdesk. Some add unsourced content to articles, some add articles that are speedy deleted in good faith, many forget to sign their posts. Pretty much none of them have ever referred to "ani" in their first edit, with a demonstration they understand what it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to say: [7] This reaction to a welcome? Tagremover (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not commenting "on behalf" of anyone, I'm just trying to come to terms with why this situation devolved so rapidly. I wasn't aware that IP's were forbidden from contributing here? Or are you trying to suggest some sort of ulterior motive? My comment about Wikipedia review was meant to state that he/she probably had some sort of idea about how attitudes work here, which has been proven absolutely right, sadly. I like the way the original point of my last message was ignored. Or don't you see it as strange that a user who refused help from an editor has now been dragged here for being distruptive by the very same editor he/she clearly had an issue with? And don't you find it even slightly off that the very message asking for help was deleted by an involved outside user? Or are you more interested in playing semantics? As for the reaction to the welcome message, it was wrong and probably should have bee dealt with, but not like this. (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what Tagremover said. The user even blanked a barnstar on Tagremover's talk page. What I did was to offer guidance to him out of goodwill. But he just snubbed my offer rudely, just because we deleted his posts which were rude and unconstructive. So, I want to help him be a better Wikipedian, but I could not, what you want me to do? Arctic Kangaroo 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
What should you have done? Try leaving them alone like they asked, that's usually a good start, then try not allowing messages that could have vindicated them to be deleted from your talk page. He/she did not want your help. At that juncture, you COULD have advised him about how to contact uninvolved editors, but instead you chose to take it personally and spite him by taking him here. As for "rudely", would that be like launching an edit war on his/her own talk page? (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Austin Dabney[edit]

No need for admin intervention; parties are encouraged to try other methods of dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is all so bizarre. User:Nyttend replaced a quote with a paraphrasing that changes the meaning. I reverted it, but was in turn reverted. I pointed out to no avail that the word "patriot" is not equivalent to "Georgian solder".

Nyttend also stated that I violated a copyright in using the quote in the first place, but won't explain just how (see Talk:Austin Dabney#Accuracy). These aren't even the source writer's words, but the reporting of another person's utterance. I offered to let Nyttend rephrase it as long as it didn't distort the meaning. Nyttend declined, citing a lack of access to the source (highbeam sub. required), though this somehow didn't prevent the initial paraphrasing. Nyttend has held up my DYK over this issue.

Nyttend also complained of overcitation. Now this I may be guilty of. However, Nyttend claims that a citation attached to the last sentence of a paragraph covers the whole paragraph, which I've never heard of before.

Finally, Nyttend claimed I am violating WP:CIVIL because I called the paraphrasing "sloppy", and has threatened to bring my "repeated 'commenting on the contributor, not on the content' ... to light". I suppose that refers to my characterizing Nyttend's conduct in this matter as "so odd and hostile". Well, I stand by my opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I repeatedly told Clarityfiend, we have no business using nonfree quotes gratuitously; he's using it as part of the text, rather than as a subject of commentary or as a method of highlighting someone else's specific words, and as such it is easily replaceable with a paraphrase. This applies regardless of whose words they are. This is precisely the same situation as a nonfree image being used for decoration, but Clarityfiend repeatedly refuses to rewrite it, despite the fact that nonfree use is a violation of copyright law; I can't be clearer, but he insists that I'm not explaining. As I've noted already, he has access to the source, and I don't, as the citation links to the abstract of an offline source, and he's citing the full source; he's the only one who can judge the context, and yet I get told that I'm writing "sloppily" because I misunderstood a context that's not available and am simply paraphrasing the source that he included. He also objects that I've changed something like "text text<ref name=a>cite</ref> text text<ref name=a /> text text.<ref name=a />" to "text text text text text text<ref name=a>cite</ref>". If the text hadn't needed to be edited to remove the gratuitous nonfree content, I would have noted the problem without doing anything; see my comments and those of others who reference me here, precisely the same situation, in which I didn't do this because the page had no copyright issues. Finally, he deletes a citation from the end of a paragraph and objects that I restore it, saying that I'm inconsistent and refusing to listen to my response that text needs to be cited. It's a basic principle of writing with citations; I don't understand why he thinks it's such a big deal that it justifies incivility and needs an administrator to lay down the law on me. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, first of all, I don't see any patent wrongdoings on Nyttend's part as an administrator or an editor. Therefore administrator intervention is simply not needed; you should pursue dispute resolution as usual if it's necessary. That said, though, I personally don't see the reason for Nyttend's insistence on making this change. "...we have no business using nonfree quotes gratuitously...", that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. The quote wasn't being used in violation of our non-free content (or any other) policy. Swarm X 05:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Am I in the wrong forum? Well then, point me to the right one please. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 6 February 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:Xkcdreader / Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness[edit]

Xkcdreader has agreed to cease participation in the Star Trek title discussions. 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 6 February 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.

Given the hostility of this WP:SPA, his refusal to listen to advice, and his constant disruption of the talk page at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness where he tried to introduce what was essentially the same proposal five times, I would request admin intervention and possible sanctions. I appreciate I may have shown my frustration at his disruption a little too vocally on a couple of occasions, but I've just tried to offer an olive branch on his talk page to be met with extreme hostility and an affirmation that only he knows how we should act on a talk page and that discussions should be undertaken in the manner that he sees fit. He seems to think that WP:IAR means that he can do what the hell he likes. He needs to be put back in his box for a while. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'm tempted to indef, what with it plainly being a lulz-only account, this is being dealt with on talk already. Stop rising to it; consensus is currently against the inclusion of the material in question, and it'll likely remain that way, so the only disruption is some walls of text on a talk page that you don't have to read. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The guy shouldn't be blocked for trying to improve an article - however nieve he is about talk page methods. And to be quite frank all of the 4 main users involved (being Rob, Scjessey, myself and Xkcdreader) have flared up and not been WP:CIVIL at times. As for consensus, there is no clear consensus either way at the moment - but I'm not gonna go into that here. douts (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Reluctantly, in his defence, I don't think he is a lulz-only account. He's new here, and his is a WP:SPA, but the issue is really down to the fact that he is trying to steamroller a change to an article, and causing mass disruption along the way, and refusing to listen to advice of other editors and trying to get Wikipedians to act according to his rules on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that was nice :). Rob is right, this is not a lulz account. WP:SPA is accurate though, I have yet to go look elsewhere to contribute due to this miserable experience. I just care about presentation and making things easier to read. Chris Cunningham would be wrong to say "consensus is against inclusion." Currently NO consensus exists either way. That is why there is still an issue. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with the user that filed this complaint (do I need to put something on his talk page?) He has self admittedly closed discussions, prematurely, on multiple occasions, to pretend a compromise has been reached. My proposal was not the same, and there were multiple different reasons for it to be re-proposed. The first time it underwent a substantial rewrite, to the point where many users original criticisms were addressed. (This claim is not inherently obvious due to me inline editing the proposal as people offered suggestions. I learned why this is a bad idea, and ceased doing so. I still have no problem amending changes to the end of them. If this behavior is unacceptable please let me know. You would need to dig through the mess I caused on the talk page to vindicate my claim, but I hope you can trust that I am being honest with you.) The second time it was apparent that part1 was nearing consensus, and votes needed to be taken individually. I recombined the content and I proposed a final draft. Part 1 reached consensus, Part 2 did not. I re-proposed just part two as its own debate and the user came in, argued, and had the discussion closed after part1 was implemented, by claiming that by "allowing me to contribute part 1, we had reached a compromise, and discussion of part 2 was no longer allowed." I am unsure whether this was simply accidental misinterpretation of the situation, or willful malicious deceit. There was no consensus on the second half of my proposal, and it IS at the moment still under heavy debate. The aforementioned user continually misrepresents what happened, and claims a compromise was reached. He uses this lie to close discussions. He is in a sense intolerable and multiple users are voicing their frustration with him as well. I am not sure who, but one of us lacks Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE#Use_common_sense, possibly both. If our conduct comes under review, his should be met with stricter scrutiny considering he is an established editor, whereas I completely admit, I am learning as I go. His behavior towards me and my contributions is completely inappropriate and unbecoming of an established editor. I have tried AS HARD AS POSSIBLE to meet everyone half way. This user has not budged an inch from his initial position. He publicly admits he is unwilling to compromise, and pretends that prior consensus over part 1 is his compromise. He has explicitly stated he will not help in any way, but only continue to argue his position. I repeat for clarity, (I know there is a rule about this somewhere, I cant find it) he refused to attempt compromise, AND refuses to help make the content more appropriate in his eyes AND refuses to even attempt cooperation. There has not been WP:CIVILITY since the minute this began, nor any "olive branch" of consideration for other peoples views. This editor lacks empathy. His (from my perspective) snide olive branch on my talk page personally feels like him trying to prevent my side from being presented in a clear manner. He even misrepresents what I did. I amended something to the end, (an addendum) and he refers to it as a revision. I did not go back and change the previous content, except minor formatting issues and such. He thinks if he can disrupt the proceedings, my ideas will go away. You can't kill an idea. As I said earlier, he closes discussions before people are allowed to speak, to make him look in the right. I understand the way I go about it is unconventional in some senses, but I don't think this user is in a place to prevent people from trying NEW THINGS (BE:BOLD.) Clearly the old ways are not working, or the i|I situation would have never occurred. He seems to think he owns the Star Trek Into Darkness page, and is doing everything in his power to prevent content which he finds irrelevant and WP:UNDUE from being discussed. To quote two rules I learned about due to this fiasco: WP:BURO "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it" and WP:Content_removal#Reasons "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." These two rules seem to directly conflict with WP:BRD so we are left at an impasse. That will probably require admin input. Support for the current proposal seems to be split very evenly, and as the rules are currently being enforced, the benefit goes to the people excluding content, not those creating it. Personally I find this to be broken policy, and one of Wikipedias weaknesses. A small, but vocal minority of people, can prevent Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE#Use_common_sense decisions, such as capitalizing the I in the Star Trek title. It took BE:BOLD admin action just to overrule this user and his small cabal of users who think the rules must be enforced in the most strict sense. They think if every i is not crossed and every t is not dotted (that was a joke) content is unfit to be included. This user seems to believe only established editors have new and novel ideas. I thought the purpose of wikipedia was to work together, to write content, edit content, and polish content, not prevent it. The user that filed this complaint prevents Wikipedia from functioning even at its most basic level, even if he is an "established editor" (Who determines if you are established. Is that some kind of official title? Is there an award ceremony? Is levity not appropriate right now?) It takes 40 thousand words and an admin to change a single letter. My proposal is 5 sentences, so it will take eons if we can accurately extrapolate the rate of change. This user seems to think that if you have not been here for long, you must listen to those that have. I find this mindset would only preserve the current status quo, which appears to be gridlock. Something should be done to prevent this user from blocking new but imperfect contributions from being implemented and something should also be done to prevent his disrupting the editing process by closing in progress discussions. If admin intervention is necessary it should be against the same person who insisted the Manual of Style takes precedent over actual rules. (You should reprimand me in some way too, that is more than deserving at this point.) His drive to enforce all rules, and use technicalities to prevent imperfect content is poison to this project. Please cage him, so the rest of us can talk, and I will work hard to be less disruptive as the rest of us work on cooperating with the willing to arrive at compromise. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully admit, I save my posts too much, and probably fuck up the talk page by causing edit conflicts. I am trying to get in the habit of previewing and not saving, and other users can attest to this desire to improve my contribution process. (I also believe, I may be mistaken, that it is ok to be hostile on my own talk page, especially after I have asked someone to leave me alone, just not on public ones. I invite you to read my talk page. Correct me if I am wrong.) Xkcdreader (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we have become a society where no one (even admins) are willing to read walls of text, and instead prefer Newspeak to actual discussion, this entire conversation is pointless. What is going on here can not be summed up in one or two sentences. (Sorry again for the poor 'save page etiquette' Old habits die hard, and reflexes are hard to control. I swear, I'm working on it.) Xkcdreader (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)'

@Chris - Are you the admin dealing with this? I find your pejorative "lulz-only account" and "walls of text" statements make you an impartial judge, and biased against me. Can I request the eyes of more admins who are actually willing to take more than ten seconds to look at this, read what has been said, and then come to conclusions? Ironically, this mess, in my opinion, is caused by people commenting without reading. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To address the accusation levelled at me above, I admit I did close a discussion once[8] in the mistaken belief that the matter had been put to bed not 24 hours earlier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok so if you stop referring to a compromise which did not ever ever ever exist, I think the hostility is over. My issue with you is continually misrepresenting what happened. This includes that you start calling my revision an addition/addendum, which is what it actually is. I added a clause stating this, so as not to be misleading. Transparency is important. Please stop using misleading words to lead the court of public opinion against me. I have ALWAYS been acting in good faith, it doesn't feel as if you have been. I'm trying here. You don't appear to be. That is not how cooperation and compromise work. You don't automatically win because you are an established editor. As long as you're not misrepresenting what is going on, my beef with you is purely your stubbornness to enforce WP:UNDUE over WP:IAR. The article is empty, and you would prefer no content to some content. It makes no sense. This is simple, clear cut, IAR. The UNDUE rule is preventing otherwise valid content from being contributed, edited, and fixed. WP:SYNTHESIS is allegedly still an ongoing issue, I am not sure we have even locked down if it is occurring. Personally, I think I fixed it. The burden of proof to prove WP:SYNTHESIS is on you. I have addressed why you are wrong about WP:SUBJECT countless times, and your fingers are in your ears. WP:SELFREF is a guideline, a suggest, not a rule, and CLEAR CUT another case of WP:IAR because this is such an odd situation. It is blocking a clear assertion that is not attempting to be self referential just to be cute. There is a REASON to use the self referential material, to create context for the quote. You refuse to acknowledge that removing the SELFREF, changes the meaning of the sentence. The integrity of the content should not take second place to rules. That is why IAR exists. Not because I want my way. Take the time to READ my proposal, investigate the sentence, check the sources, AND then oppose it. Opposing it without reading it, is why we are on this admin page in the first place. To use this quote one last time ""And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Wikipedia? HOW is that helpful? PLEASE... GIVE IT A REST!!!" by Rob Sinden." It was helpful because it explained why you are wrong. Your continual stubbornness, refusal to cooperate, and belief that you are automatically right without proving your claims is what is keeping this mess going. Stop acting like you know everything, and you are above compromise, just because you have been here longer. I am offering you TWO olive branches. Either help make the contribution better, or step aside and let it be included. If you can't accept one of those two options, we have a larger issue, and this will need to be escalated higher. I am glad you are being honest here, representing my character correctly, and defending me against rash admin decisions. It's appreciated. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support a 1-month topic ban for the two or three most prolific commenters on that talk page. The encyclopedia is in dire need of people to fix broken and unreferenced articles, not screw around arguing about a Star Trek movie title ad infinitum. 28bytes (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be difficult to justify. There is a big difference between being disruptive, and trying to counter that disruption with the interests of Wikipedia at heart. Also note the length of contribution. Note that Xkcdreader has jumped to first place after just seven days' involvement, where I have been contributing on that talk page for over a year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
@28bytes. This isn't about star trek anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. It is about principle (fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.) This is about a couple stubborn users being able to a) cause gridlock b) cause delays that prevent contributions c) silence discussions. I am being stubborn here because if you let him win Wikipedia loses. I'm not giving up until I prove my point. If any madman ever comes over all the text I have typed, and reads it, it will be plain as day that I am trying to FIX the broken practices that CAUSED the i|I debate. This is about preferring nothing and arguing over contributing and editing. It's about preferring divided consensus and inaction to action and editing. Like I said, it's about principle. Also, my edit count should not be used against me without context. I am terrible about accented pressing save out of habit. 400 edits does not mean I contributed 400 comments. Not even close. Xkcdreader (talk)

There is a second issue afoot, that DOES need admin action. (This was in my wall of text above, it probably belongs down here) WP:BURO "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it" and WP:Content_removal#Reasons "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." These two rules seem to directly conflict with WP:BRD so we are left at an impasse. When I boldly added my contribution it was WRONGLY reverted. In my mind, this is the BIGGEST thing being misrepresented here. I went boldly. It was removed by people who wouldn't help make it better. It should still be on the star trek page, RIGHT NOW. The debate should be over whether it is removed or rewritten, NOT if it is appropriate to add. Rob Sinden and Scjessey somehow managed to flip the process. "Support" should indicate removing the content and "oppose" should stand for allowing it to stay. This was the same tactic THEY used to keep i|I going for so long. MY "argument" is, that without consensus the content should stand, and not be removed. They should be the ones dissecting my work and trying to get it removed. Not the other way around. This is what I am talking about when I say "principles." From my view these two are cheating the system to get their way. By default wikipedia should favor inclusion unless they can prove why it substantially hurts the article. UNDUE weight is such a minor issue, I cant believe they can use it as a roadblock. My contribution isn't even that bold, I already have nearly half of people agreeing with me. Please AdviseXkcdreader (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Per "I'm not giving up until I prove my point" and my previous warning, I have blocked Xkcdreader indefinitely. Anyone who can convince them to contribute productively to the encyclopedia is welcome to reduce/unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I'm not quick to jump on a blocking bandwagon, I think it's necessary. Outside debates on the main talk page, I have also discussed with him, in detail, the actions I thought he should take, but to no avail. However, I'd prefer it if we could get an otherwise uninvolved admin to substantiate the block, for procedural protection if nothing else. Xkcdreader: I already discussed the reason for the original reversion, and it came under BRD. You even said it was a bold addition, and you therefore fail to grasp the theory behind BRD, and Wikipedia policy. The content was controversial, yes, but it was also bold (and wrongly so). Similar, although not the same, text had been added and removed before under non-consensus BRD by a different user. You correctly began processes to get feedback on a proposed addition, but when only one part of your proposition went through, you boldly added the second half. Lack of consensus led to it not being added the first time around, and the BRD cycle dealt with your addition. Since then, you failed to heed my advice to step down, despite on multiple occasions being offered alternatives designed to further your cause. For the above reasons, I support blocking for the time being. He has repeated multiple times that he remains an SPA because of his experience contributing to the Star Trek Into Darkness discussions, but has failed to understand the actions he could have taken to limit hostility, and allow for a more productive atmosphere. drewmunn talk 13:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the action is justified in this case, since he didn't acquiesce to filing an RFC or a DR case. I think the block should be endorsed by Chris or another uninvolved admin though if it is to stand. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a good thing if someone else could take ownership of this block. I considered unblocking per WP:INVOLVED, but xkcdreader's I may have exaggerated when I said "I won't give up." was not encouraging. "May have"????? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll take ownership of it. More specifically, I've unblocked him with the condition that he leave the Star Trek debate, and will reblock if he's not willing to accept that condition. 28bytes (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't see the unblock. Caching? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't take the first time for some reason. 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 6 February 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:KissCam and pointless redirects[edit]

I'm looking through the contributions of relatively-new user KissCam (talk · contribs) and I see that a majority of them are what appear to be pointless redirects to and/or unlikely search terms/typos for Christen Press. I was actually about to log off, but perhaps someone can figure out what's going on, as well as determine if this user's edits to that and related articles such as this are truly constructive. --Kinu t/c 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I Nuked a bunch of bizarre ones, leaving one possible one. I'll further engage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, what's particularly unconstructive about that diff, Book Antiqua? I appreciate that a player number of infinity is rather odd, but... Regardless of that, I've corrected the squad number. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[edit]

There has recently been an ongoing discussion on whether or not should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to offer any guidance, as you haven't actually provided a link to the discussion in question, but WP:RSN is probably the correct venue for this. Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link to the discussion: Sorry! However, I have already posted this at WP:RSN in the past ( but didn't get a clear response. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly sure this isn't an incident needing administrative attention, at the very most, maybe it's an RfC? Village Pump is probably best though. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A refusal to get WP:REDLINK[edit]

Editor now communicating and promising to do better. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 6 February 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.

RichardMills65 (talk · contribs) has been active recently in a particular pattern, removing redlinks from articles, and adding references. The references are somewhat problematic in themselves, and have been reverted by a few users. But it's the redlink removal that's the issue. Several users have posted on his page on this issue, including myself, and yet the pattern continues. Skipping from article to article, without apparent pattern, the user removes redlinks, sometimes purging an article outright, sometimes only removing a few. There's no apparent method to his approach, and people have been reverting him (and hence posting notifications on his page) for removing valid links. An excerpt from a post to his page with some examples of my concerns are here:

Here you deleted a ship link. These are valid links, given that naval ships are continued article worthy, an article will one day be written. And again here. As a Member of Parliament the subject will one day have an article, one just hasn't been written yet. Here you deleted another one, which left a mangled mess of wiki formatting, and here is another example of this. Here you delete a perfectly valid blue link for some reason. And here you actually add a couple of links that are textbook cases of WP:OVERLINKING.

A look at his contributions will show the issue some more. Sometimes he takes out the one or the few redlinks in an article, in others he takes out a single one, leaving others that if the one redlinked article he removed was non-notable, surely the others should go too. There seems to be no reasoned approach to gauging the viability of these links and making a decision as to whether they should be retained or removed, and the number of times I've caught him on articles where I know there is notability for the subject in question, just that no article is written, leads me to think he's not paying attention to this. I've notified about ship articles, and one of his next edits was to remove one from an article. He no longer engages on his talk page, I'd like further input, as now a number of editors are having to revert and notify him, for no change in his behaviour. Benea (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked at all the diffs you supplied on the user's talk page, and I agree with your analysis. This has been pointed out to RichardMills often enough and it should stop. As far as I'm concerned, this is disruptive enough to warrant rollback and a block if it continues. It's a bit odd--RichardMills responded positively to earlier messages, but there's nothing in response to the many messages about redlinks. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • He's back at it, again the same slapdash approach, removing in this case a red link from an article, but not the infobox. I had hoped his response to previous posts would mean he might modify his behaviour, but he seems to be going it alone now despite the warnings. Benea (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I endorse Benea's analysis. The user appears to be actively deleting perfectly valid redlinks (i.e., those whose subjects are clearly notable) at this very moment, despite the numerous messages left on his talk page explaining why this is inappropriate and asking him to stop, and despite notification about this ANI thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Bizarre. Why remove the first redlink, but not the second? I'm in agreement with Drmies here, and will block if Richard does it again without stopping to discuss. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for a day for this edit. He went on removing a redlink after Chris had warned him about a possible block. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

His other edits seem problematic as well—for example, he's adding citations to sources which don't actually support the claim in question. I just raised this issue with him though it would be great if others could help review (and revert if necessary) his recent reference-related edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this as well. His edit here to add a reference to British band Redwood (band) was actually the website which is for a Canadian women's shelter. His edits need careful scrutiny as this is more disruptive than it first appeared. Benea (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that's bad. Is he perhaps Googling the topics and mindlessly adding references to the first page which comes up? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
See also this edit where he added a reference to Google Books, citing this book while there's a big disclaimer that it is primarily made up of Wikipedia content. So apparently he doesn't even check his sources. Has this behaviour come up only recently or is it a long-term pattern? If it was rather new I'd actually consider a compromised account. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Richard says he's a high school teacher, so it's a definite possibility that his account has been compromised. It would also explain his total lack of response and communication recently. Manxruler (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that way. Mindless would be the way to describe his current editing pattern. He's doing two things and he's doing them badly, to the extent that it's a net loss to the project in having to clear up after him. If when he comes back from the block he actually takes time to engage, I hope he will put more thought into his edits. At the moment he's making them very quickly, and without reference to other users' input. Benea (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've asked Graeme Bartlett to look into this, too, since I'd like to have a second opinion about the possibility of the account being compromised. De728631 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have shown up now and will have a look.
Based on edit summary use, it looks to be the same person, but the lack of response to talk page messages is uncharacteristic. Also the low quality references looks uncharacteristic. Perhaps it is someone pretending to be a teacher. Earlier there were summaries like ‎"deleted wiki link" but now is not bothering to say what is happening. But I think a block will attract attention, but I would encourage a meaningful discussion on the user talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Let's wait and see if yesterday's one-day block shows any effect of getting Richard back into communication. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It has in fact worked. On his user talk page, Richard has now apologised for the inconvenience he caused and has promised to edit more carefully in the future. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Good, the account is not compromised and the block has expired, so I suppose this can be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 6 February 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.

Battleground tactics and gaming by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin[edit]

Seven months ago, Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk · contribs) (GotR on talkpages) changed a header in Scarborough Shoal from "Claims by China and Taiwan" to "Chinese claims". I reverted this. GotR then posted in talk and made the edit again, which myself and another editor responded to, and I reverted back to "Claims by China and Taiwan" again. GotR never responded to either post, or otherwise used the talkpage after this.

On 20 January GotR made an edit to the article, with the edit summary "RV edits that could give the impression of being the same government". This "RV" included changing the header to the one they wanted. After an IP changed the header to something else, I reverted back to the stable version on 28 January. After this, GotR made another edit, with the non-descriptive edit summary "Reverted to revision 535088632 by Tarheel95. (TW)", which included the header change. On 4 February I made an edit, restoring the original header (along with the noting in the infobox of China's control of the shoal, which is a separate bit of content arose after another editor noted this control on the talkpage in a post that hasn't been contended). GotR follows this with an edit made with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit, in which they again put in their desired header. When I reverted this 'minor edit', GotR reverted this with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): CMD, your behaviour is outright WP:OWNERSHIP, as I've already made enough concessions, almost enough to seem like a wuss. (TW)". In my response, I said "If you think I own the page take it elsewhere. You're trying to force in your pet title (including with a claim of reversion, after months) while claiming you're making concessions (which is at any rate irrelevant) and accusing others of ownership." Their response was to say "I shouldn't have to point the paragraph beginning with "in 1935" is more concise in my revision, yet you dastardly RV away because it is not how *you* have always liked it". (During the writing of this report, I accidentally clicked the rollback button on their last edit in the article history, which I then rolled back, which is why there are two rollbacks at the top of the article history. Apologies.)

Their last edit completely ignores the header change and accuses me of reverting away because it's not how I have always liked it, which is despite the fact that I explained my position on both the talkpage and in edit summaries, and seems rather WP:POT from someone complaining about how they've had to make concessions. In the meantime they've tried to game the system, using misleading claims of reversions and other unhelpful edit summaries to put in their preferred changes, marked edits as minor when they're clearly not (and this is in no way a new user who doesn't know our guidelines), and responded the reversion of these by accusing me of ownership. This is actually a rather mild incident in the history of a user who has previously directly called another editor "vermin" and has used their userpage to launch their own (quite long) personal attack against me. It is however a good indication that this user is still greatly emotionally invested in the kind of issues which compelled them to launch such blatant personal attacks at earlier points (which I let slide at the time, and I believe others did too, and I'm not aware of any prior reports on this user). That they say they feel like they are going to be seen "like a wuss" in this latest exchange highlights this continued emotional investment, and that they discuss giving concessions shows a rather battleground-minded mentality rather than a consensus-minded one. I'm not allowed to discuss this with the user on their talkpage, as I'm on a list of banned users (despite not having ever actually posted on their talkpage before). GotR has been entangled in this China/Taiwan from almost the beginning of their editing history (their first post on the topic included an allegation of "possibly wilfully deceitful", and as shown above it only went downhill from there), and clearly needs to be separated from it. However, they do a lot of work elsewhere, and I reckon they can be productive away from this area, which seems to push too many of their buttons. CMD (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ah, the turncoat", is it (quoting Adm. Gerard DuGalle)? Shall I display the definition of 'concession' or will you tacitly admit forthright that I have made far more of them then you ever were capable of making? Shall I point out that I have deferred to Readin's judgment on naming issues frequently? Need I mention the change of my AWB settings after complaints (not unmerited) by these two? Ought it to go without saying that I removed my tirade against CMD just hours after it was posted and that you have my word that I shall never go to such lengths on my user page again? The list goes on, but now is the work-week, not Friday night when I may have more time to produce evidence. Also, every piece of evidence CMD provides that is not related to the Scarlborough Shoal is old. Seriously old. If there are significantly more editors with this "if it rains today, it most certainly will tomorrow" mindset on this site, I fear for the future of the Project.
Focusing on Scarlborough Shoal, "my last edit" moved away from using 'Chinese claims' in the header and shifted to a metonymic style which is very commonplace in press reports? The "wuss" remark was made because if I had made amends without any second thoughts whatsoever, I would be totally discarding my principles. I am willing to shift attention away from that page provided no reverts are made to the text below the section headers.
Turning matters away from myself, I begin with CMD's sloppy reverts, which have no regard for anything other than the header, are self-evident in their demonstration of article ownership. Then, of course, there's his total refusal, outside of matters dating to or before the KMT retreat to Taipei and China's seat at the UN, to back any naming configuration other than what has been demonstrated to be the highly politically charged "Taiwan is definitely not a part of China". GotR Talk 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi CMD. I don't know anything about the incident you mention, but I'd like to say that GotR is an extremely valuable wikipedia contributor (just check out his contributions!), and that I have collaborated with him successfully many times and it's always been an enjoyable experience to work with him. I hope the 2 of you can work this out. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Before anyone attempts to assail Azylber as being "ignorant", I should emphasise again that I am willing to make amends to those who do not simply perform wholesale, not justified-item-by-item, reverts. GotR Talk 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really worried if anyone thinks I'm ignorant on this issue, and in fact I started by stating my own ignorance. The only thing that I am worried about, is when I see a valuable contributor like you, being accused of pretty serious stuff. Hence my intervention. Azylber (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
@GotR: I'm capable of engaging in discussion, and I also don't think it'll help you here to open with yet another personal attack (and again I note consensus isn't about a balance of concessions). You can mention what you want, but unless you explain how it's relevant, which you haven't, it doesn't mean much, especially as it doesn't address many of the issues I posted above (and yes your last edit didn't put back Chinese claims in, but it was still a totally new header which you again didn't discuss on talk despite opposition. In addition, arguing it should be used based on commonness of press reports is quite poor considering that China and Taiwan are far more common). You removed your tirade because after making it you went and pointed it out to me on another talkpage, after which I noted it was simply a personal attack. That you removed it with "point made" after this doesn't sell good intentions. It has been explained to you, many times, that in the vast majority of the English speaking world speaking of Taiwan as separate from China is simply common practice, and isn't remotely political. It's impressive that after all this time you still don't seem to understand that.
@Azylber: They may well be valuable, as noted I'm not familiar with many of their edits. However, it seems that in this topic area in particular there's a lot of disruptive behaviour, well illustrated in that at the very beginning of their reply above they decide to engage in another attack, alleging that I can't make concessions. CMD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That you fail to acknowledge my numerous other retreats from pure ideology is in itself a statement, even understatement, of your Texas sharpshooter/cherry-picking approach to discussion. That you continue to deny (without diffs) the extent of your obstructionism is troubling. It has been explained to you, CMD, many times, that a one-size-fits-all approach to naming, or anything for that matter, is self-destructive, and that whatever the hell the main articles on the two states officially known as the PRC and the ROC are titled is no licence (in particular I quote Nil Einne) to wage unrelenting name-changing campaigns, even blissfully neglecting any subtleties or details in the process, is far more disruptive than anything I have done. In case anyone has not noticed, I almost solely use common names in text (infoboxes do not count), so the claim I somehow ignore common names all the time is false. GotR Talk 05:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
N.B. Just to note I'm aware I was mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't mentioned any retreats from ideology either way. As for any denial I have to make over supposed obstructionism, I haven't seen any diffs showing any obstructive behaviour, and I'm unsure of what exactly I'm obstructing. If I have been on a unrelenting name-changing campaign, I've done a pretty poor job of it (one would suspect if I was on such a campaign, I'd at least try to rename prominent articles like Economy of the People's Republic of China, especially in light that its counterpart is Economy of Taiwan, but I haven't). As for your claim to "almost solely use common names in text", you've been on a streak of article creation, where you use "People's Republic of China" in the article text. Are you going to address the issues I mentioned in my opening post, or just continue to write about me? CMD (talk)
I've already addressed the opening post pretty thoroughly, and I only use "People's Republic of China" for locations in municipal districts and a few subdistricts, so yet again you misrepresent my work and my words. If you don't believe this, I suggest you go through all 100+ of my creations in the last 6 weeks; we will see who that you are totally ignorant of common sense notions such as the Law of large numbers. I won't provide diffs unless someone else asks for them, but we can begin with that CFD renaming of Category:Islands of Fujian, Republic of China along with other move de-Sinification move requests you have participated in; the list goes on. GotR Talk 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There's been no address of the misuse of the minor edit option, the putting of changes back in months later under the summary of a revert, and the doing all of this despite two users arguing against on the talkpage. As for misrepresentation of work and words, I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made. You shouldn't expect others to go through 100+ independent articles. I see you've made yet another attack on me, again unhelpful. CMD (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
1) I am fairly whimsical on whether to check the minor edit option, and it is up to reviewing users to examine the diffs in the first place. This is a non-issue. 2) Because it still quirks me to prefer a header with questionable NPOV over one with unquestionable NPOV and greater brevity. As to the "two user arguing against on the talkpage", perhaps I have not made myself clear that I will defer only to the judgment of Readin, Shrigley, Jiang, and other users with similar centrist views.
"I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made"—just as ridiculous as sampling five Americans and claiming they are representative the US. GotR Talk 02:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a page outlining the use of minor edits, ignoring it is not a non-issue. As for only ignoring the talkpage posts outside of a few select users, that's bad practice, and completely against standard WP:dispute resolution procedures. The difference between the five americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample, I took the most recent edits, made during this discussion. If you're not willing to provide diffs, that's no-one else's problem. CMD (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────"The difference between the Five Americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample"—No, there is no real difference between the Five Americans as the sample size is similarly small and, besides, you just undertook convenience sampling; I've hardly met anyone who has come up with excuses for their irrationality as stupid as yours. And looking at the last 35 of my creations, only 7 (Xieji, Henan, Huilong, Dazu District, Huilong, Liangping County, Huilong, Nanchong, Huilong, Suining, Huilong, Zigong and Huilong Township, Ziyang) do not use the common name at all. One-fifth is quite underwhelming. GotR Talk 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another attack? Looking at the most recent contributions isn't taking a sample, it's making observations on the most recent contributions. That's all I did, and all I claimed to do. Anyway, if you feel that this equates to "almost solely", that's up to you. Thanks for the figures and links though, very helpful. CMD (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Have you two noticed that other then some brief comments from Azylber early on and a quick note from me, there have been no other contributions to this thread? Usually that's a sign the discussion doesn't belong at ANI since no administrative action is likely to be forthcoming so it's best to either drop it or take it somewhere else. And I say this barely having read the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(Chuckles). That was obvious from the very start. Especially when we all know that sometimes this forum is used to lynch-mob certain editors; even though I harbour acrimonious sentiment towards some, taking them to AN/I is far below me and, moreover, not productive. Only when the majority of a user's recent editing energies is spent on disruption (wilful or no), and applies to neither me nor CMD, is utilising this forum worth the potential subsequent drama. GotR Talk 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Nil Einne, I would appreciate it if you would advise me where to take this if AN/I is not the right location. As it stands, GotR has edit warred in a new edit to an article, and in this AN/I has basically said that they don't really care for the correct use of minor, hasn't acknowledged the poor use of edit summaries, has stated that they're only going to listen to a few select users and ignore all others (including in the instance mentioned an editor who I don't recall seeing at any of the naming discussions), a position which includes ignoring the talkpage if these select users haven't posted on it, and has made a couple more personal attacks. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of extremism[edit]

I would like to report acts of incivility which are not bordering on an incident. After reviewing the various methods of dispute resolution and arbitration, I have come to the conclusion that this specific conflict does not fall into any other category. I don't think I can take this to RfC because it isn't solely about user conduct, but rather both conduct and content. I already tried to get a third opinion with the helpful user GorgeCustersSabre and his attempts at mediation have been ignored. I don't think it belongs at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee] because that page insinuates that it is only for conflicts which the community has previously been unable to solve, and this situation hasn't escalated to that level yet. The dispute resolution noticeboard appears to be for disputes which are purely content related. The Mediation Committee also appears to be for disputes which are purely content related, and as a last resort, but this isn't a last resort as I feel this problem can be solved without oversight.

For the past six years or so, the page on Barelvi, which is a religious movement in South Asia, has been a battleground both between detractors who wish to defame this group (mostly through petty vandalism) and supporters who wish to remove any sources which indicate controversy or criticism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor who is a follower of a religious movement editing that movement's page, so long as they edit objectively. This has not been the case with all editors, something which I and others have tried to rectify - for six years. I have recently been subjected to a number of personal attacks due to my edits on this article, and the users who have attacked me personally:

1. Have continued attacking me on other pages, and
2. All have a history of being blocked for either vandalism or uncivil behavior

The content dispute itself isn't that major and wouldn't warrant being brought here on its own, but the antagonistic nature of some comments directed at me has caused me to feel uncomfortable continuing discussion with these editors directly. I would like to notify the administrators of this and request some form of outside intervention, either through warning the editors involved (even myself, if I am found to have conducted myself inappropriately) or another effective means of solving this issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu's explanation[edit]

That Barelvi Article was having a consensus version for more than a year see [[9]] and there were minor edits.Neutral editors were keeping and maintaining the Article Objective see the history and version. So I request neutral editors to maintain consensus version.

1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi.
2.The case of mezzo mezzo is that he stopped Non Wahabi or general Muslim wikipedians to add the heading, Wahabi Terrorism relations in Wahabi Page where as he is recently involved in an attempt to insert the Just opposite matter in Barelvi Page.It may be noted that Al Qaeda Osama bin Laden including Lashkar and Taliban all have same ideology i.e Wahabism or so called Salafism.A pervert ideology which is responsible to kill lacs of innocents in the world.

So my indirect attribution on a Wahabi as Jehadi are not baseless.

3.The Barelvi Ahle Sunnah ideology is only power which is countering openly and organizing protest against the Terrorism in South Asia and in other parts of the world which is disliked to these People.In the Whole world Sufism or Barelvi are the main victims of these terrorist.Here it is very important to bar Wahabi or Wahabi sympathizer to edit the pages against which their ideals are waging a so called Jehad.
4.The Wahabi authors have always tried their level best to insert their personal opinions and to reduce the importance of all Non Wahabi Pages on wikipedia,in this connection mezzomezo has done his level best in the past to suggest many pages from Barelvi page for Deletion.
5.He has history of engaging in

(a)Bitter debates and in (b)Edit wars with Non Wahabi editors

6.Ultimate agenda of these editors is to save pages of Terrorist ideology and defame his opponents. Msoamu (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo's explanation[edit]

Barelvi article[edit]

  • On January 27th at Talk:Barelvi, I expressed my view that User:Baboon43's affiliation with the Barelvi movement was compromising his objectivity; I based this view on dealing with the article for six years and seeing this before, and my familiarity with English-language discussion boards for this movement on the Internet. My comments seem to have upset him, as he reacted here by accusing me of being a member of a rival religious movement in the region and described my assumptions as ridiculous. I assured Baboon43 that I am not a member of any religious or political movement - though even if I was, that doesn't restrict me from editing the article in and of itself, nor does Baboon43's membership in the Barelvi movement restrict him from editing in and of itself. I also reiterated my view regarding the content dispute; mainly, that Baboon43 is painting all rival religious movements in the region (Deobandi, Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi) as being the same, and calling them Wahhabis, a term for Muslim extremists. This conflicts with established consensuses on all these articles; they are separate movements, even if they (and the Barelvis) agree on some points due to them all being Muslim movements. Baboon43 expressed his feelings that my accusations of POV signaled my own POV, that I was trying to assert ownership of the article and that I was accusing him of "hating" other religious groups. I was upset as I felt he was changing the focus of the discussion, and was claiming (what I still uphold are conspiracy theories) that all Muslims who are not Barelvi are united in trying to harm the Barelvi movement, causing me to answer that he can't simply reject established scholarly consensus across several articles in favor of conspiracy theories about entire countries trying to sabatoge his movement. He once again accused me of belonging to some rival group, of hating Barelvis and of edit warring, which was not my intent. GorgeCustersSabre made a sincere attempt to mediate the situation after I requested him informally to arbitrate, as he had earlier expressed legitimate concern about edits, including my own.
  • On January 28th, I attempted to pull the discussion on Talk:Barelvi back to the content instead of the conduct and requested a review of my own disputed edits. Later, there was a rush of IP addressed vandalizing the article in ways which were insulting to the Barelvi movement, followed by a series of deletions and rewrites by another IP address from the exact opposite perspective. On February 2nd, I requested that the page be protected due to the spat of edits, but I failed to go to a proper board for such a request; a mistake on my part, in retrospect.
  • On February 4th, User:Msoamu - with whom I had fallen into conflict years ago - entered the discussion, calling me a Wahhabi (technically a slur, as it means a Muslim extremist rather than a self-identifying group) and accusing me of:
Engaging in a history of edit wars on the page,
Trying "hundreds of times to vandalize this page,"
Trying "to show this Moderate movement in Bad light from various angles,"
That I "must has received many warnings in the past" (I haven't received any),
I edited the article according to some hidden agenda,
I consider Barelvis to be heretics, and
Called me a Jehadist, an accusation which could have serious implications for my personal and professional life. This accusation in particular could hurt my own self and my family, as my IP address could be associated with violent fundamentalism, and I have no connections to that whatsoever.
  • Msoamu reverted edits GorgeCustersSabre, about which GorgeCustersSabre inquired on the talk page. Msoamu's answer was to again simply accuse me of vandalism, edit warring and breaking some imaginary consensus. He never actually gave any reasons why my edits or the sources I added were inappripriate.
  • Msoamu accused me of having a history of vandalism, edit warring and insinuated that I should not be allowed to edit the Barelvi page because I am not a follower of the movement.
  • Finally, I just expressed my desire for arbitration, for which Baboon43 seemed to mock me.
  • It is worth noting that User:Saqibsandhu, whom I don't know and have never had contact with, did defend my disputed edits as sound and well referenced and called for an end to the personal attacks.

Wahhabi article[edit]

  • Concerned about Baboon43's intentions and his history of being blocked for disruption, I went to the Wahhabi article as he had been challenging the scholarly consensus on that group over on Talk:Barelvi. As I expected, I found him there expressing more opinions which I disagreed with from an editorial standpoint. On February 2nd, Baboon43 posted a comment which seemed to insinuate that all prominent persons from Saudi Arabia must be members of the Wahhabi movement. On February 4th, I again expressed my belief that Baboon43 was promoting conspiracy theories, and that I found (and still do find) his comments to border on racism; how can we say that all famous people from a country of 25+ million are members of an extremist religious movement? It's like saying that all famous Cubans are communists, it's not an appropriate statement to make. Baboon43's reaction was to accuse me of being a Wahhabi and of not having knowledge on the subject. Again, even if I were a Wahhabi - and I told him before this that I am NOT a part of any movement, but even if I were - I would still be allowed to edit articles. Likewise, even if I have no knowledge of the issue, I can contribute to articles. The constant accusations of being a religious extremist, however, are very problematic. I informed Baboon43 that I wanted arbitration, and he responded by more or less mocking me for it.

Further discussions[edit]

The accusations of being a Jihadist can potentially threaten the safety of my family and the stability of of personal and professional life. It sullies my image as a Wikipedia contributor and will really endanger my family if my IP address or details of my identity are ever known. Above all thing, I would like this issue addressed; not only do I feel the slander should be removed, but I would also like to know if that edit can even be removed from the article's history.

In addition to User:GorgeCustersSabre, I would also like to call User:MatthewVanitas as a witness to this, as he helped working out some of the POV issues on the Barelvi article six years ago, and thus knows how far back these issues go. In the name of fairness, User:Shabiha has also monitored this page for years; as a Barelvi editor who has also criticized my edits in the past, perhaps he can provide another point of view on this dispute. Lastly, this User:Saqibsandhu person seems concerned and perhaps can provide some insight. I will inform Baboon43 and Msoamu about this incident report. I look forward to a resolution to all this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Having looked at just the evidence of racial speculation, that is totally unacceptable and there should be sanctions for that alone - I cannot see where they directly called you a Jihadist, but then I don't know enough about the Islamic religion/culture to determine which of these other speculations is essentially calling you a Jihadist. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Accusing somebody of being an "online Salafi Jihadist" is very uncivilised.I would like to request User:Msoamu to stop personal attacks and calling others extremists and please bring solid and neutral references like User:MezzoMezzo did if you want to contribute on page.Revert war and personal attack is not a good policy if you have any objection on edits by Mezzo Mezzo bring it on talk page and discuss it with fellow editors. Recently when User:GorgeCustersSabre and User:MatthewVanitas challenged my edit about Shrine worshipping we solved the matter on talk page( even though still I can provide lots of 3rd party references to prove my self right but they kept my edit also and added a neutral statement that "opponents call it shrine worshipng". we have to make this article more balanced not a battle ground to push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talkcontribs) 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Lukeno94: Msoamu called me a Jihadist here when he said: "I appeal and invite neutral authors to come forward and Save this Page from Online Salafi Jehadist like mezzo mezzo." It's the last paragraph of his edit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear friends, MezzoMezzo is right that he has been subjected to severe and unfair personal attack. I have not always agreed with MezzoMezzo's edits, including a few reversions of my own edits, but he tries hard to be objective and he always explains why he is making the edits. That's the right way of going about things on Wikipedia. I commend him. Differences can be sorted collegially on talk pages. Accusations of extremism against him are unwarranted and ruin the good will we are all trying to create.Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The SaquibSandhu is not neutral and is supporter of Wahabism. His edits reflects his dis likeness to Barelvi movement.As mezzo mezzo has alleged that Article was having any POV,let it should be examined by User:GorgeCustersSabre or by any other neutral editor.This false and baseless allegation does not give right to him to insert his own POV.Msoamu (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Protip: Don't insult the person who AN/Ied you at AN/I, or make allegations about their beliefs. Perfect way to lose your case immediately. Also, can you provide evidence in your defence about him pushing his POV? Also, please tell me what "SaquibSandhu" means? Is this an insult or derogatory name, or what exactly, as I see no user listed here with that name? Lukeno94 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
mezzo how can you complain about personal attacks when you are behind it..not only do you personally attack others but you turn the discussion personal when you disagree with have gone out of your way to confront me in multiple even said you would add relevant articles on your watch list…wahabi is not a term for muslim extremists if you go to the Wahhabi article its simply a movement..i never claimed all muslims who are not barelvi are united in harming barelvi movement…i never said all famous ppl are wahabi stop making things up..mezzo called me a racist for stating the fact that saudi arabias royal family are wahabis as clearly written in historical references see Emirate of Diriyah..mezzo disagreed with my comments on Talk:Barelvi so he quickly entered into discussion by lookng at my contributions at Talk:Wahhabi his excuse was that i have a history of 2 blocks last year therefore he has the right to hound me..he then began personal insults calling me racist [10]..admins need to sanction mezzo for his hounding and personal attacks on myself Baboon43 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Baboon43: Wahhabi is a Muslim extremist movement; you calling me that is an insult and is clearly meant as one. I will not discuss that topic further than that; attempts to deny it are silly enough to warrant being ignored. As for Al-Waleed bin Talal, then this is a content issue but it's still racist. You're saying all members of the House of Saud are also members of an extremist religious movement? Again, can I now say that anyone from the family of Hugo Chavez believes in authoritarianism? This is also different from your previous statement where you seem to implicate any Saudi involvement in projects equals Wahhabi involvement. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came off.
Anyway, I'm still more concerned about your conduct than the content. The content issue could be sorted out if it weren't for your conduct which makes me uncomfortable in dealing with you outside of a controlled environment like this. As for my own conduct then let's allow outside mediators to look at it and comment here. I called your comment bordering on racism. I didn't say it's full on 100% racism, and I didn't say anything about your personally. The link in the previous sentence to my edit is proof of that. And as for following you then of course I watched those pages. You have a history of vandalism proven by your block log and your standoffish nature was a cause for concern. If you or anyone else can show me explicitly in Wikipedia guidelines that my behavior was incorrect then of course I will stop, but to my knowledge I haven't broken any rules; you've broken a number already. That's ok as all editors make mistakes but the big problem is that you seem completely unwilling to engage with me personally in a civil manner, hence my seeking of outside intervention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Msoamu: Which allegations are false? You called me a jihadist here. I work for a reputable institution and if such allegations were ever to be tied to my identity, it could have ramifications at work; nobody wants to be associated with that, nor do governments in the civilized world tolerate such people. Thus, your comment runs the risk of putting both me and my family in danger. And without reason! I disagreed with your editing as I found it disruptive; where do you get off accusing me of religious fundamentalism? The content about which we were disputing wasn't even related to politics! Now you sit here insulting another editor who didn't even get involved other than to comment in opposition to your behavior, calling him a Wahhabi supporter too. How you do even know that? The person whose name you mentioned hasn't given his own opinions in any discussion or even engaed in comprehensive edits, he just disagreed with you. The whole world is full of Wahhabis now unless they all bend to your viewpoint?
And how can you claim that you want neutral editors like GorgeCustersSabre to monitor the article when every single edit he's made to the article has been reverted by yourself without discussion or explanation? It almost seems like you're just trolling now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
wahabi saudi clerics have denounced terrorism so no your wrong..wahabism is a movement out of saudi arabia and is not synonym to extremism..why don't you look at your own personal attacks calling me barelvi? its time you take your own advice by halting uncivil behaviour..then maybe after that you can direct other editors about civility. Baboon43 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Msaamu: How do you know that I am Wahabbi ?? this is again a personal attack from you. You were removing a referenced material and I was asking you to discuss it on talk page is that make me Wahabi ?? There are lots of people every where in world who disagree with barelvi movement means they all are Wahabi? And about my neutrality you can see on talk page the stuff I provided there was from a third party not from Pro Barelvi or wahabi site and even after that when GorgeCustersSabre tried to make the wording neutral did I stopped ?? see the talk page. Please do some "Real contribution" instead of personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talkcontribs) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem ready to discuss content in a civil manner, Baboon43. Will we be able to do this without name calling?
Calling someone a Barelvi, by the way, is not a personal attack. There is a tremendous difference between ascribing someone to that movement and calling them a Wahhabi. I think everyone else here will agree. Are we ready to move on? (For admins viewing this, I still don't consider the issue with Msoamu finished at all - I would still like my personal concerns addressed, as well as his further personal attacks on others right here on this noticeboard, if possible.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless any of you have publicly stated what your religious views are, I don't think it's appropriate to claim anyone is part of ANY religious movement, regardless of what type. Obviously, naming someone an extremist (via associating them with an extremist group) is worse, but avoiding that kind of conversation entirely would be the most sensible policy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I attributed a terminology Online Jehadist to Wahabi Supporters who don't want others to know the real face of their movements.The Wahabi Terrorism relationship is regularly removed by MR.MEZZO MEZZO on the pretext of one and another.See [[11]]

Must See that how Saqibsandhu has just removed [[12]] a Terror word from the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan a Banned terrorist organization of Pakistan.What more evidence one needs ? If not original terrorist, their supporters are here to defend them any how.This is what i tried to show to all neutral editors.

wahabi is a belief its not about being extreme or not..all wahabis are not extremists..wahabis are anti innovation in religion, hostile to sufi groups, some also protect saudi government from criticism..& they follow abdulwahab and mostly ibn taymiyah..there is wahabi sufis...groups like the muslim brotherhood have a mixture of sufi wahabi beliefs as well...saudi arabia was founded on the tenets of wahabism..usually western media mentions wahabis in bad llight but its not always the case..ISNA Americas largest islamic association is influenced by wahabism so how can they be extremist?…every movement has good and bad its not black and far as the name calling question the ball is in your court. Baboon43 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:KissCam and pointless redirects[edit]

I'm looking through the contributions of relatively-new user KissCam (talk · contribs) and I see that a majority of them are what appear to be pointless redirects to and/or unlikely search terms/typos for Christen Press. I was actually about to log off, but perhaps someone can figure out what's going on, as well as determine if this user's edits to that and related articles such as this are truly constructive. --Kinu t/c 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I Nuked a bunch of bizarre ones, leaving one possible one. I'll further engage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, what's particularly unconstructive about that diff, Book Antiqua? I appreciate that a player number of infinity is rather odd, but... Regardless of that, I've corrected the squad number. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


I don't know if this is the right forum to address this, apologies if it isn't, but Qaher-313 has become the target of some seriously anti-semitic and homophobic vandalism from 2 different IP editors over the past few hours. [13], [14], [15], [16]. I don't know if page protection is warranted, but because of the content of these edits, I thought it was worth at least having some admins take a look. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a couple of days. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Both those IPs are static according to the "Geolocate" links and I don't personally see why either of them should get to edit Wikipedia at all. has been given a 31-hour block (not enough, IMO), and I have now given a one-more-and-you're-out warning. I'll try to keep an eye on both. Thank you, Dawn. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[edit]

There has recently been an ongoing discussion on whether or not should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to offer any guidance, as you haven't actually provided a link to the discussion in question, but WP:RSN is probably the correct venue for this. Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link to the discussion: Sorry! However, I have already posted this at