Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Why is this guy getting unblocked every time he is blocked for a long period of time?[edit]

I personally feel that we have more than exhausted any value in this discussion. Everyone has had their views aired and the law of deminishing returns has now set in. Lets go do something useful instead. Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There are so many issues that I don't know where to begin. I have skipped reeling off diffs with the hopes that you'll believe me. Here is an editor, Darkness Shines who is a persistent POV pusher, typical recidivist who is adept at seeming civil to those who he thinks matter (BTW I don't matter. I am a nationalistic prick according to him). He is an editor who was just recently blocked for two weeks (First time by Bwilkins), that block was upheld again, you'll see. The remarkable thing is that the block was lifted with claims that are, at best, vague and inadequate. He was unblocked by an admin (i.e. RegentsPark) who was, both the times, deeply involved with him on multiple threads about controversial topics. RegentsPark has, in past, unblocked him several times, no wonder he unblocked him after the first two weeks block, claiming he has changed. Bammm! DS gets blocked again (by Spartaz) within days of his unblock, again two weeks block. RP again amazingly deemed it fit to unblock him even when he again claimed that "this block is bollocks". Right way to appeal blocks? Here is his block log. Also, discretionary sanctions are allowed on those articles he usually edits. He isn't amenable to discussions[1].

Read what Mr Spartaz wrote after he blocked him, [2].

"DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatantly baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable."

Admin Fut.Perf said,

″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″[3]

Even RP seemingly agreed with this view.

You may ask what was his fault, in short I don't know all of them it will take three or four editors to rightly explicate what violations he committed within the last few months. Save me the repetition, read this. He created a purely offensive article, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources and highly distorted claims. The moment it was deleted, he added this link of the closure of the AFD to his to do.

Now no sooner had he been unblocked he resumed his previous pattern of disruption.[4] This guy is as unrepentant as any banned user I have seen. This guy is not only a danger to the project but also a danger to others because he has the capability to test others' patience. He is a guy who, if kept unblocked, will lead to not only his own block but also others' along with his. This comes after months of attempts to reconcile.

Check his latest archive and see how many rejections his unblock pleas received. So the question is how long will it continue this time? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it too much to expect that you might name the subject of your rant somewhere, and also post the required notification on that user's talk page? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
My net speed sucks but I did it now. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
My notice is reverted [5]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
AlexTiefling, please allow at least ten minutes to elapse before complaining about an editor not being notified, and twenty minutes is better. Some editors have motor or dexterity impairments, others are forced to reboot or reconnect at inconvenient times, or they get a phone call, etc. Six minutes is not enough time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
These accusations are quite troubling. With a block log like that, a user should not be so quickly unblocked, especially by an allegedly involved administrator when other administrators have declined to unblock. Can you substantiate this alleged involvement with links? I will notify RegentsPark of this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can but my wife is eating my head. GOD DAMMMMMNNIT! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
[6]This should give you an idea. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • its barely 2 hours since we discussed this on my talkpage and I categorically refused to consider an unblock. [7] This is a highly abusive action - especially as I requested Regent's Park to bring this to ANI if he still wanted to unblock. I'm fuming and will butt out while I calm down. Unbelievable. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Assume good faith. User:RegentsPark is a helpful and positive contributor. --TitoDutta 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Assume the assumption of good faith. Although I am not happy with how he credulously dealt with DS's issue, the primary subject of my accusation is not admin RegentsPark but Darkness Shines. I am not assuming anything on RP's efforts. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bwilkins was not 100% happy with the first unblock either but he let it go[8]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • RegentsPark has certainly given the impression of consistently holding a protecting hand over this and other tendentious editors. He has now unilaterally unblocked DS three times within one year, each time cutting an intended two-weeks block short to a few days. This is worrysome and I would definitely ask RegentsPark to keep out of any such further events in the future. Fut.Perf. 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • DarknessShines was blocked for edit warring on tags and has voluntarily agreed to restrict himself to not more than one tag per 24 hour period. Disruption over and time to get back to content. As for the rest, I can assure you that I'll block DS if necessary. I like good content editors and prefer to see them unblocked (be they DS or Mr. T) but that doesn't meant that I have some sort of special protective thing for any particular editor (well, one or two perhaps, but definitely not for DS).--regentspark (comment) 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That is precisely the problem with you: after all the disruptive tendentious shenanigans from these two editors and others like them, you can still claim you consider them "good content editors". Obviously, they aren't. I caught each of them at blockworthy acts of source misuse and source misrepresentation just the other day, as you are well aware. Fut.Perf. 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • FPaS, misuse and misrepresentation of sources is a wilful act that is grounds for an indefinite block from this project. Surely, there is an Arbcom case with appropriate sanctions available. Or you could just use Common sense and indef them now. If they have done it once, they have likely done it in the past, and will likely do it in the future. Such wilful and evidenced abuse of one of our core policies (WP:V) is not excusable under any circumstances. Russavia (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
          • (ec) Perhaps 'useful' content editors is a better way to express it. They both add a lot of content that otherwise wouldn't be here. Either way, if you think there is a long term problem with these editors, you should look for consensus to get them banned. Using single blocks is not the way to go about that. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A block is not preventative if one knows that some friendly admin will unblock early. DS's block log has gotten long enough that unblocks should NEVER be an option (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Preventative not punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • While I do think you're acting neutrally RegentsPark, you may want to let someone else handle unblock requests, especially if other unblock requests are being denied and you find yourself ready to unblock. Having Darkness Shines unblocked three times from a two week block certainly makes it seem like you're involved. While blocks aren't designed to be punitive, if you find yourself being the only administrator willing to unblock this one individual, that could be an issue. Considering how many administrators there are, you could certainly bring it before the community and see if another agrees before doing it yourself. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks Moe. These are good points and worth a thought. Particularly the one about being the only admin willing to unblock. I don't completely agree with the having unblocked three times thing, we don't ask admins to stop blocking if they have blocked someone often and the same ought to apply to unblocks. --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    To be fair, I would also ask an administrator to not be the only one willing to enforce blocks of a single contentious editor as well, FWIW. A single admin doesn't have to be the only one to perform blocks and/or unblocks of the same person (outside of obvious cases like vandalism), so that kind of "double standard", if you will, shouldn't exist. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The block log surely looks lengthy. As far I know DS does have good edit history but at the same time an annoyingly disruptive behavior which ends up with him being blocked. I am not sure if DS is being volatile in certain sections or topics? May be he needs a topic ban? As per my Opinion (which is of a semi-newbie in WP)- Some sort of neutrality should be shown by the admin here. RP needs to keep away from unblocking him, irrespective of how much ever a great editor DS be. Even if it is done in good faith, it does bring RP's neutrality to question. Also to RP's comment that he will block DS if necessary - DS was blocked by other admins when it was necessary and you unblocked him from these necessary blocks - Are you saying that the other admins are being to irrational in blocking him? Amit (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Amit, an editor can be blocked for a good reason and then unblocked when they are willing to acknowledge their mistake and move forward. In this particular case, Spartaz was right in blocking DS and my unblocking doesn't mean that I disagree with the initial block. Since DS addressed the reason for the block, and blocks are not meant to be punitive, it made sense to me to unblock. If there are longer term issues of the sort that FPAS is bringing up, then these should not be the province of single admins but rather should be discussed by the community. --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I understand and agree (as I mentioned consider me a semi-newbie). But I tend to agree with other editors here that repetitive blocks do point to long term issues and hopefully this discussion will take care of it. Amit (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would only point out that Regentspark has also unblocked the user who brought this complaint - in fact just five days ago - [9] - so regardless of the right or wrongs of this unblock, a claim that he is not impartial is probably not going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Black Kite, I kindly disagree, the user MrT was blocked for 72 hours(3 days) on 9-jun 14:14 and unblocked on 12-jun 06:44. Hardly a untimely unblock here - i think it was a normal unblock after the time of 3 days got over. Please correct me if i am mistaken in my understanding here? Amit (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, that's still 8 hours before the end of the block (which should have expired at 14:14 on the 12th). Not on the scale of this unblock admittedly, but still an early unblock. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not yet convinced that Regentspark is an involved party here. I'm beginning to understand his/her motivation, that good content generation forgives a multitude of sins. But in the case we have here, there is an editor with a long history of disruption and a number of other admins who object to these unblocks. In this case, I sense we may have a germ of a consensus forming to ask Regentspark to refrain from unblocking DS in the future without seeking community consensus here, and perhaps also extend that to other potentially contentious unblocks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment as one of the admins who denied one unblock request: I declined to unblock because at the time I didn't see an agreement to not repeat the actions that led to the block. But if such a commitment was present in a later unblock, then I'm happy to accept Regentspark's judgment of that - and if the block was meant to be preventative, then unblocking once it has had the desired effect seems fine. If there are bigger and more long-term problems, they should be dealt with separately - an existing edit-warring block is not the way to deal with bigger issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time for sanctions to be proposed. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that I had closed this discussion and another editor took it upon themselves to revert [10]. I stand by the original close. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 21:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I took it upon myself to revert your decision to take it upon yourself to prematurely close a reasonable discussion. I fail to see the impending clouds of drama forming and I feel that was an unfair characterization of this discussion and the editors involved. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is noted but you are mistaken. I see people talking about sanctions when they have failed to identify a policy violation. That is a recipe for witch burning drama. The entire thread was started simply because one editor wanted to have a bitch session, which is outside of the purpose of ANI. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 21:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you claiming that regentspark is gaming the system? Dennis Brown | | © | WER 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong (sorry, had to use the restroom). I am claiming that Darkness Shines has gamed (and continues to game) the system. With such a lengthy block log, it's obvious that a slap on the wrist won't help the situation. The user obviously doesn't get it, or doesn't care. Either way, it has become a serious problem. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then you have no idea what this is about and should excuse yourself. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A long term policy violator being repeatedly unblocked is certainly a valid matter to address, and your characterization of it as a "bitch session" is both unfair to the complaining editor (not to mention those of us attempting to look into the matter) and the sort of attitude which discourages editors from seeking assistance. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to debate with you or get in a revert war, you are simply wrong here. Still now, you have not identified or even claimed any policy violation or abuse of tools but you want to turn this into a discussion for sanctions against regentspark, per your own revert summary. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The only thing I personally have advocated thus far is having Regentspark refrain from unblocking DS without consensus here on this page. A dramatic and onerous sanction indeed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed. The only one I see who is causing the drama is Dennis himself. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And that advice was given in the close. If you want to impose official sanctions against an admin, you don't do it at ANI, you do it at WP:AN, and you don't do it in the middle of a different report. Any sanction against an admin is a serious thing, since trust is paramount to the bit. If it is important enough that you need an official sanction, then do it proper. Otherwise, if only an unofficial note was needed, that was already provided very clearly and bluntly in the close that you reverted, which I am confident he would have taken to heart. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me add one more point. I agree that regentspark should exercise greater care in contentious unblocks in the future. I said as much in the close. What I don't agree with is ad hoc official sanctions done this way. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 23:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is why Darkness Shines continues to be an abrasive trouble maker. It's called enabling poor behavior. And it's not the first time I've seen Regent Parks step up as chief enabler. I would suggest that he withdraw himself from those kinds of decisions in the future where that editor is concerned. Crtew (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

When an editor violates a rule, he or she should be blocked. When an editor is no longer being disruptive and there is no preventive reason for being blocked, he or she should be unblocked. Fairly simple and policy driven. Moe's argument that it is worth a second thought when you're the only one willing to unblock is a good one, and something worth thinking about but I'm not sure I agree with the rest of this "two strikes and you're out reasoning" on unblocks. That way we'll have no admins left to deal with darkness given his tendency to get blocked! Personally, I have nothing to gain from an unblocked DS (and nothing to lose from a blocked one)- we're often enough on opposite sides of issues, so the idea that I'm doing this for some sort of personal gain doesn't hold water. At best, the only thing you can charge me with is a preference to see editors (any editors) in an unblocked rather than in a blocked state. Nothing wrong with that or 'are we here to stop editors from editing or to help them contribute to the project? --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

When an editor shows no sign of learning from his blocks, there's no reason to unblock him, and generally no reason to mess around with two-week blocks, either. Can you explain what signs you see that Darkness Shines understands the reasons behind his blocks and shows both the willingness to and capability of avoiding the behaviour that led to his blocks?—Kww(talk) 23:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Learned what? He was blocked for edit warring in the midst of a contentious bit of editing where all the editors got blocked. Are we going to throw him out of Wikipedia for that? If that's your opinion, then you should seek a community ban or a topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 00:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that it's reasonable to unblock an editor when you have no reason to believe that he won't repeat the behaviour that lead to the block? Editors that don't learn to avoid the behaviour that led to them being blocked are typically given long or indefinite blocks, not unblocked the moment that the particular individual dispute blows over.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kww, did you even bother to read this thread? regentpark's very first comment was "DarknessShines was blocked for edit warring on tags and has voluntarily agreed to restrict himself to not more than one tag per 24 hour period." That seems to me to be "a reason to believe" and the answer to your question before you even asked it. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 00:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The frequency of DarknessShines' blocks and the short space in between them have given us a reason to believe that regentpark's faith in DarknessShines' professed reformation may be unfounded, and that gives us a reason to believe that perhaps other administrators should be dealing with DarknessShines from now on instead of regentpark. Gamaliel (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Dennis, I read it. My question is what reason regentspark had to believe it. Most blocked editors are happy to make assurances that they won't repeat the problem. Part of our job is to assess the credibility of these assurances.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My point is simple: If you think that regentspark needs official sanction, take it to Arb or AN. If you want to just discuss, then go discuss in a clean discussion. The editors here keep mixing up the two different issues, which is hardly a fair discussion to either Darkness or regentspark, and fairness is more important that any single unblock, period. My close was reverted before I could even finish writing a message to regentspark and start a discussion on his talk page, something I typically do when I close a discussion like this (see above, for that matter). This is not fair process, plain and simple. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It would be a reasonable conclusion of this discussion that regentspark made a truly ill-considered unblock and to reblock Darkness Shines. Nothing unfair about that at all.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is so clear. Blocking based on this jumbled discussion would be out of process, to say the least. Assuming that from this discussion would be an improper read of consensus since it wasn't even an option on the table. That proposal could have started at WP:AN after I closed this mess, for that matter. This is why process matters. I have no love for bureaucracy, but there is a reason we have established methods and a degree of bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 02:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying we are at that point right now, just that the discussion could reasonably conclude that way. I see your preference for separate discussions at AN as a preference, not something mandated or recommended by policy.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But this whole discussion is not done with a consensus kind of format of support/neutral/against. How would any one form/figure out a consensus in this non-formatted section? It would be best to wrap this discussion - and may be in a new discussion we can make consensus based points for the so called biased admin intervention. Amit (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you are arguing that consensus can't be reached unless there are people using bold words like support or oppose at the beginning of each statement. If so, I suggest you read WP:NOTAVOTE. —Kww(talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken you are saying voting doesn't replace discussion - I totally agree with you about it as a general point? But in this case the discussion has become so multi-pronged, (See below too). What is the end of it all? This seems just muddied water to me. No conclusion?. Amit (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Why hasn't he received a topic ban? Let him contribute to TOP 40 POP articles. Crtew (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is an appropriate discussion for this noticeboard. Describing the discussion as a "bitch session" is simply ignoring the issue (at best). On a side note, I continue to be flabbergasted by the tolerance of disruptive editors to "avoid the drama" of dealing with their disruptive behaviour. user:j (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not the only user that regentspark has unblocked without appriate cause or consensus. Note the lifting in March of a consensus-imposed block here [11] and refusal to explain how consensus was determined here [12]. In that matter, too, there was a plausible argument of involvement, although a few years distant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    Hullabaloo, I must admit you've piqued my curiosity a bit here. What "plausible argument of involvement" are you seeing? --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes he is not the only guy. See this. Spinningspark blocked Lihaas for two weeks, the very next day Lihaas was unblocked. Guess who unblocked Lihaas? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Uh, are we looking at two different things? It looks like RegentsPark unblocked Lihaas because they were blocked for a mistake they made, and indeed they haven't been blocked or in trouble since. That's an example of RegentsPark doing admin right. Writ Keeper  14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I too find it disturbing that Regentspark is unblocking eds he is involved with. RegentsPark, DarknessShines and MrT3366 all edit and hang around India related articles. See talk:Narendra Modi for one example. I have long suspected that RegentsPark might be using unblocks as a way of buying support/influence during content disputes + as a way of buying votes during the next arb elections ... as a way of buying votes from eds who might otherwise vote against them. RegentsPark had run for a seat in the present arb, and missed narrowly, and is likely to run in the next elections. So, one can see why they might want to curry favor with folks who might vote against them. Whatever. I certainly don't think it is respectable for an admin to block/unblock users he is involved with/ users who edit around the same articles that the admin is editing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that is quite serious of an allegation (You are so close to suggesting WP:MEAT here among all involved admins here), If every one connects dots across such a wide area you would end up bringing another 10 admins in this whole loop. I would suggest keeping this topic for Darkness Shines alone. and starting a new AN for the questionable admin interventions. Amit (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not quite see how I am "...so close to suggesting WP:MEAT here among all involved admins here". My impression is that this thread is about regentspark's actions rather than about DarknessShines's behavior and I my comment is in keeping with that vein.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My mistake - I did not mean all involved admins - but read it as "mentioned editors" because you just mentioned that you suspect that RP is doing this to buy support/influence during disputes+ for ARB etc... Any such solicitation or way of influencing is WP:MEAT which is defined as - "Meatpuppetry is soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion. A "meat puppet" is another editor that has been solicited to sway consensus. It is a violation of this policy either to solicit meat puppets or to be a meat puppet for someone else." Amit (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is somewhat different from meatpuppetry. AFAIK Meatpuppetry is when new accounts are created simply to support one person. I do not see that being done here.What I see here is an admin using admin tools to extend patronage/project power among involved eds and probably hoping to gain influence/support. Admin tools being used for personal gains/politics rather than for the benefit of the project. Maybe it is right to use admin tools in this manner, but it don't look right to me at least.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would encourage all people reading these bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations to review the past interactions between Regentspark and OrangesRyellow. (Specifically, I refer to his red-linked userpage.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please revive faith in wikipedia processes. I had no idea a person could be blocked that many times and keep on editing. At least a topic ban if he get's crazy on one issue... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: What exactly is at loss if RegentsPark is asked to stop from interacting with Darkness Shines as an admin? Let them interact as editors but RP can keep his broom away from DS, for both blocking and unblocking purposes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Close[edit]

Re-apply block as per original block on Darkness shines and apply an extended block for Darkness Shines for a minimum period of 6 months for any future incident. Also Restrict Regentspark from unblocking Darkness shines at any time in future. Other incidents related to Regentspark to be handled in a new discussion. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • What makes his current unblock OK? Why this unblock should be allowed to stand? Is he more special than the rest of us? I guess so, perhaps he is. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)The proposer changed the wording after I had commented [13] --Mrt3366
I agree, I changed the proposed close above. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean extend a topic ban for six months? Crtew (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If it was a certain topic, i would have proposed an indefinite block, but that doesn't seem the case here. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
We ought to step aside and let the admins decide as to the proper course of action. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would oppose reblocking Darkness Shines because it would be blatantly punitive to do so now. Darkness Shines should be reblocked only if he/she does something which could be seen as harmful to the project. It is Regentspark who has shown a lack of good judgement while using admin tools and I think they should be desysopped. From what I can see, Regentspark fully intends to continue using admin tools among involved eds if not desysopped.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My point is nothing has changed in his attitude as well as behavior and he hasn't shown that he learnt from his mistakes. He still firmly refuses to accept the issues regarding the Category and article about Anti-Muslim pogroms in India which were raised and explained to him by Multiple Administrators. See this and this. He still impenitently defends all this among many other things. He didn't even bother to clarify any accusation. There is not a vestige of contrition in his behavior. What do you call it if not "recidivism"? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reblocking of Darkness Shines. I do not support the setting of a 6 month block in advance of knowing the circumstances of any future offence. I do not support restricting RegentsPark from any future unblocks. The accusation of being involved and canvassing levelled at RegentsPark are unsubstatiated. RegentsPark should instead be censured for the unblock. After approaching the blocking admin and not getting support for an unblock from them the correct course of action would have been to open an ANI thread to seek community approval for an unblock. SpinningSpark 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose... I too oppose applying restrictions on RegentsPark. No comment on Darkness Shines. --TitoDutta 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a reblock for an edit war that is over, when the original block would have expired now anyway, is just nonsense. If there's a bigger issue with DS's behaviour (and I agree there is), then start an RfC/U with diffs supporting long-term problems and let the community evaluate the evidence and decide on any appropriate action - don't do it as a knee-jerk reaction to a minor unblock for a minor bit of edit-warring. Dennis's close was entirely correct, and what were seeing here is a continuation of the pro/anti India/Pakistan/Muslim/Hindu POV wars that have been blighting this site for years - with a notable number of the protagonists turning up here to join in the fight -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This says RfC/U CANNOT impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures. We are talking about a potential re-block or ban. Could you suggest a venue for this purpose? Enough is enough. This is not the first time where Darkness Shines has been publicly censured for his behavior and editing pattern. I firmly he needs a topic ban otherwise others will needless be blocked along with him. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
No, an RfC/U cannot impose sanctions, but it can present evidence and generate a consensus which can then be used at WP:AN to request sanctions. And if you want a topic ban, complaining about the unblocking of an edit-warring block once the edit-warring has stopped and after the block would have expired anyway is not the way to do go about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reblocking Darkness Shines. It seems strange to put a restriction on Regentspark that only involves one other editor, but if it prevents this happening again, I'll support that too, though I think it would make more sense to do a general restriction on Regentspark not unblocking anyone without both community consensus and agreement of the blocking admin. It's worse than just enabling here, the whole thing has the stink of Nixon-style backroom cronyism, and that's just about the last thing we need on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Boing!. This is why I closed this discussion earlier, and reverting it was poor judgement. It has turned into cries of "burn the witch!" with no substance and lots of opinion and conjecture. What could have been a peaceful discussion on regentspark's talk page has instead become this incomprehensible and tangled mess with no real consensus and certainly no clarity. Sanctioning regentspark without demonstrating abuse or policy violation is a non-starter. Even here, the two topics are tangled improperly. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 12:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Automatic oppose on random sanctions on admins for unblocking. The last thing we need is still fewer admins willing to extend the hand of peace and offer an unblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the reblocking of Darkness Shines. No other comment on other proposals. — Richard BB 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Boing and Dennis as the supports and opposes above are all varied in topic. Having said that, if DS is blocked in the future, any early unblocking should probably be done via the community rather than by any individual admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support re-blocking Darkness Shines and subsequent monitoring. Although against a formal sanction, I would expect RP to exercise some voluntary constraints before unblocking Darkness Shines ever again, esp. when that block is reaffirming a pattern of recidivism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly, y'all kinda blew it with the hasty unblocks and haggling, so a reblock now would look rather petty and punitive. Handle it better next time, so if this user steps out of line you can do something with conviction and make it stick. This is like a wiki-version of Ryan Braun and the mishandled drug sample. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support action regarding un-blocking admin, Oppose reblocking as that would be punitive. (Same reasons as OrangesRyellow) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    Can you please point to the policy that was violated, in order to justify your request for sanctions? Dennis Brown | | © | WER 13:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose all sanctions. Given the level of blind, unthinking partisanship here (on both sides, quite likely), this is a dispute that either needs to die quickly and quietly or go to (dun-dun-DUN!) Arbcom. Having quasi-votes like this, where everyone just toes the party line, is not going to actually resolve anything. Writ Keeper  14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose...most DS should never have been unblocked early. But there's never going to be enough proper consensus in this forum for a re-block. Yes, it appears that the unblocking admin sure as hell had some past history and should not have unblocked for both that AND other reasons. DS is known to act like a jerk to many other editors. DS is known to push his POV. DS is known to push the envelope across this entire project - that's all RFC/U purview first, then ArbCom (based on the topics he covers). So, we admonish DS for his behaviour but cannot reblock ATM; plus we admonish Regents for performing a controversial unblock that they should never have touched to begin with. If you want sanctions on Regents, there's RFC/ADMIN. Now let's all move on and address all of our future behaviours, but remember that DS is on a very very very short leash (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This whole discussion is almost as stupid as the unblock was. The issue of RP's judgement and DS's behaviour have become conflated and no good ever comes of that. I tend to agree with BWilkins - indeed my comment on RP's talk kinda says the same thing. I'm mostly concerned that not two hours earlier RP had been told by me that I opposed the unblock and then he used the most ridiculous pretext I have ever seen to unblock when I already invited him to seek a consensus here if he disagreed. He seems to have a history of putting his judgement ahead of other admins' judgement and his commentary here suggests that this will happen again because he shows no evidence of taking on board the feedback from those who disagree. Frankly I can't see this ending anywhere except RFCU/A if there isn't some movement. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Close without action per arguments and closing remarks by Dennis Brown above. If you want to sanction an admin (or anyone else), do this properly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there is a fundamental divide in the community as to what actions are necessary for incorrigible editors who still contribute some useful content. One view is escalating sanctions. The other is repeated short sanctions. I've seen this divergence regarding civility and now edit warring. I don't think there are any easy answers because the community is so divided that no general standard is going to be adopted. If it's any consolation, the divergence exists in real-life justice systems across the world too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Jojhutton[edit]

NOPE
There may or may not be no exceptions for legal threats, but it actually has to be a legal threat for that clause to apply. Jojhutton has made it clear that it wasn't, in accordance with the rules. Writ Keeper  22:23, 18 June 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.

Jojhutton (talk · contribs) has made legal threats in this comment :"you have gone even further by making slanderous statements" and ". You cannot go around making slanderous statements on talk pages". "Slanderous" is a legal term and an implied legal threat, which I've seen other editors blocked for using. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • That's hardly a legal threat. Slanderous means a malicious, false or defamatory statement. It can be used without any legal context at all. Given the context he used it in, it's clearly not a breach of NLT Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I made it very clear that admin action, not outside action would result. JOJ Hutton 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You said AN/I, but as I am sure you know, AN/I is not a venue for content disputes. So that's a red herring. You were clearly trying to intimidate and chill speech by using American legal terminology, and preventing that is the specific reason for the existence of WP:NLT. Further, the policy clearly covers such use of legal terms, to quote "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Yworo (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yet you still haven't answered for the lies/misrepresentations you made in your comment. Want to answer why you did that?JOJ Hutton 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, now you know that's not what they meant. Are you going to close this petition? DarthBotto talkcont 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I made a simple mistake by not looking at quite enough of the article history. I'm sure not going to apologize given Hutton's edit-warring and intimidating behavior. So sue me. And no, I'm not going to close the petition, Hutton clearly meant to chill speech by using the words, and I'm happy to wait for an admin to apply the no exceptions policy. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Which policy is that? user:j (talk) 22:21, 18 June 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.

Weirdness[edit]

User has acknowledged the issue and the current editing doesn't appear problematic. Glitches happen. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:39, 19 June 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.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suri_100. They seem to be creating an awful mess with page moves that will take considerable admin time to fix and generally blanking huge sections of articles with frivolous edit summaries. Pol430 talk to me 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea wtf they are doing... I think an explanation needs to be forthcoming (so far Suri has not responded). The most recent archive move makes no sense to me... Paulmcdonald has not changed his name either... and besides the point, we don't move RfA archives when people change their name anyway. Shadowjams (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Try clicking on Wikipedia:5yt... <shrug /> Based on their talkpage, which includes the fact that yesterday they turned off Cluebot, I would suggest there is a substantial competency issue here. Pol430 talk to me 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the Lear's Fool RfA to its proper name. If Suri 100 makes another page move, block them for disruption. Weird. EVula // talk // // 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going through and deleting the implausible typos, and yes, by all means, block them if they do that again. Its a mess to clean up all the unnecessary redirects. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 21:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at their sandbox User:Suri 100/sandbox, combined with the "I want to be an admin someday" userbox on their user page makes me wonder even more. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 21:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think at this point a block would work, if for no other reason than it forces an explanation. But mjy spidey sense says this is an experienced troll. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd wondered about compromised account, but 'little brother' wouldn't start off by moving AfDs. Possible, but vanishingly unlikely. Peridon (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
[15]...if we want to AGF then that shows that the user has no WP:COMPETENCE whatsoever; if not, then it shows that they're a liar. Both fairly undesirable. Theopolisme (talk) 21:15, 17 June 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:Nawiarigi[edit]

BLOCKED
Blocked by ‎Rschen7754 as a sockpuppet of User:Alorkalabahi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new contributor, User:Nawiarigi seems to be making random misplaced edits - I suspect a language problem, at minimum. See edit history: [16] Note the copy-pasting of text from an article from Indonesian Wikipedia into a 'category' here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 18 June 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.

POV Editwarring at List of Freemasons (A - D)[edit]

User:‎Underlying lk is POV edit warring at List of Freemasons (A - D) to omit the inclusion of Ataturk in the list. I have tried amending the entry to alleviate his/her concerns (rejected), I have tried adding additional sources to support the inclusion (all rejected), and I have tried explaining on both the talk page and at WP:RSN why the sources provided are, in fact, highly reliable (arguments ignored). It is clear that he/she is determined to omit the entry, and plans to reject any source that supports it, or any effort to reach a compromise. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The matter is thus: his sources have been rejected by multiple uninvolved editors at RSN diff, diff. For my part, I provided multiple scholarly sources that implicitly reject his claim. Failing to achieve the consensus he wanted, he resorted to threats, and WP:FORUMSHOPping, hoping to find a more sympathetic audience here. His conduct is definitely uncivil, and I think a ban for incivility would be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Blueboar here. He has (at least 3 that I checked) sources that explicitly state that Ataturk was a member of the freemasons and you expect an implicit non-mention to counter-weight that? I would say that you'd need a biography on Ataturk's life to explicitly state "It is a mistaken belief that Ataturk was a freemason." It's not my area of expertise, but I don't see why the sources must be scholarly.--v/r - TP 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
TP, this has been discussed in detail at the Reliable Sources board. Bluboar's sources are weak, and scholarly literature on the specific subject of Freemasonary and the Young Turk movement does not state that Ataturk was a member. Paul B (talk)
You'll have to educate me a bit, this isn't my area. Why are scholarly sources required here? Would I need a scholarly source to say that Steven Seagal was a member of the Screen Actors Guild? We have 3, maybe 4, sources that explicitly state a thing is true and another user arguing that no sources exist saying otherwise is evidence of the contrary. Please tell me how this is anything more than a "truth" argument? Because if it is, I'll remind everyone that we report on what the sources say, not on each person's own truth.--v/r - TP 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea what a "truth argument" is. Blueboar's sources are generally either weak, or they are overall histories that mention Ataturk in passing. Mistakes in such sweeping histories, even by experts, are common. I happen to have some expertise on William Blake. You can find many sources that say he had Irish ancestry. In fact this was a fantasy created by WB Yeats based on someone's speculation. Books on Blake by Blake specialists do not say this, but you'd be hard put to find one that explicitly denies it, because it's irrelevent to deny. You do find it in books on the Irish through history. You have to look in detailed historical literature on Blake to find rebuttals. In this case we are dealing with a list of freemasons. People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A truth argument. And can you explain what "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established" means? What level of sourcing is needed to clearly establish a fact? In your example above, you failed to counter my argument. Why would a book on a person's life not mention common misunderstandings such as "It's a common misconception that Ataturk was a freemason"? Spell out what is needed. Because as it stands, that list should probably go up for deletion because it seems to me by your standards that none of those could be uncontroversial or clearly established. What is different about this guy? Why is his membership controversial? I feel like someone is dancing around a relevant fact of this argument that would make them appear to have a POV and I don't have a clue what it is.--v/r - TP 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I am fully aware of Wikipedia:Truth. This dispute has nothing to do with that whatever. The only person who claims to know "the truth" is Blueboar. I have great difficulty understanding what the rest of your post is trying to say. Why don't you read the Reliable Sources discussion? I have no interest in whether any other person should or should not be in the list. That's irrelevant distraction. The question is whether or not Ataturk should be. It's not a "common misunderstanding" about Ataturk. It seems to be something that only interests some Islamists (for whom Freemasonry = evil western conspiracy) and Freemasons, who want to associate their movement with great people and progressive movements. This is commonplace - just like Irish poets wanting Blake to be Irish. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've seen you around and I've generally had a good impression of you, but you must have forgotten your coffee this morning. Blueboar has sources. He's not saying he has "the truth," he's got sources to support it. All you've got is your insistence that Blueboar is wrong. Luckily Zero found a single source for you, but Blueboar still has four. So, my question, if you're not trying to be deliberately obtuse, is what level of sourcing is required to reach the level of "their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established."--v/r - TP 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've seen you around and am surprised by the vey confused position you are adopting. I repeat read the debate. BTW, this is not about me. I came to this from the Reliable Sources board. I don't know why I have to repeat myself over and over: 1. Bluboar's sources are poor. 2. Other sources contradict his. 3. Specialist sources do not say what his - poor - sources say. You introduced the irrelevant wp:truth link. I replied that Blueboar is the only one who is claiming to have the truth, because other editors are saying that we do not know or cannot be sure based on the sources. Note that all independent editors have taken the same view. You are the "outlier" here, because you dived in without reading up on the debate. BTW, I found the same source Zero did, as you would know if you bother to read the debate. The debate, by the way, is essentially over, and Blueboar is now forum shopping. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've read the debate. What I don't get is why the level of sourcing required was raised to "scholarly sources." Here's what I see and I'm begging for you to help me to understand: Blueboar wants to add Ataturk. Sources are required. He finds them. Those who dispute the claim raise the bar by requiring scholarly sources. I question why the bar was raised and you say "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established." If it seems I support Ataturk being included, I really don't care about the guy. What I don't understand and why I'm inclined to support Blueboar is I don't understand why the level of sourcing is higher for this subject than what is required by policy. By that argument, you can dispute ad infinitum, or filibuster, any topic on Wikipedia to it's exclusion; which is why I brought up the subject of no one on the list being included. So, what is the logic for the higher sourcing requirement? I understand why things like WP:MEDRS exists. So please, explain why this is necessary.--v/r - TP 15:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It was obvious you hadn't read the debate when you commented that "Zero found a single source for you", since several sources are disussed in the debate. I was the person who added reference to the source you claimed Zero found, and this was not a conflict between Blueboar and me, but Blueboar and eh bien mon prince. Still, I'm sure you have read it now. I don't know why eh bien mon prince first disputed Ataturk. You will have to ask him/her. All I know is that when the dispute came to the RS board several editors, including myself, looked in sources on Freemasonry and Ataturk. It became increasingly obvious that the claims were problematic. Disussing the reliability of claims in sources is not a matter of simply following clear and simple rules. There are degrees of reliability. There are cases in which nominally reliable sources are clearly in error. That's why we have the board: to examine disputes. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh puh lease. I'd argue some of those sources as well on better terms than "I just don't like them." The last one, for example, was paraphrased incorrectly unless the untranslated text says something drastically different. That discussion has very little merit, in my eyes, which is why I'm barely acknowleding it. Why you ask? Because I've yet to understand why the discussion jumped to scholarly sources so quickly. Moving on, you said that the claims are problematic. What determines it so? What prevents someone from arguing for higher and higher sourcing? What prevents a dissuaded party like Underlying_lk from continuing to demand more and better sources to push his POV? That's what I see happening here, and that's what I'm questioning. What is RSN's process to determine when 4 sources arn't enough? The way the process has worked in this case, it seems and again I'm trying to understand why my perspective is wrong, is that if someone argues loud enough that any level of sourcing can be disputed. I've got other questions, like Kmhkmh's argument about Freemasons writing on Freemasons automatically becoming primary, but this seems the most glaring.--v/r - TP 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid your responses are degenerating into taunting. This is frankly pointless. If you wish to join the debate about sources do so on the appropriate board. Your "questions" are so generalised as to be useless. This has nothing to do with anyone arguing "loud enough". It's about the quality of the sources, the context of the claim and the nature of scholarly writing. I've stated this repeatedly, so I see no need to do so yet again. It's getting into "I didn't hear that" territory. That's why we have detailed discussion of real examples at RSN, not of abstract claims that anyone can question anything. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Taunting? It's not taunting if you've avoided answering a very simple question. Be gone then. If you can't tell me where you derive the authority to raise the bar on WP:V because you don't like what the sources say, and you can't explain yourself, than you should not be making these kinds of decisions. All I asked was for clarification.--v/r - TP 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
How can I answer a meaningless question? You are acting like a spoilt child repeating "why" over and over after every answer. No-one in particular has the "right" to raise the bar on reliability - everyone does. It happens all the time when issues are contentious. Reliable sources are often in conflict, even over matters of fact. Somnetimes they are demonstrably wrong. There are degrees of reliability. I've said this repeatedly already. The debate revealled the complexity of the issue. That's what such debate ideally should do. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, so when the answer makes you look bad, you deem it meaningless and resort to name calling. The question was, why was the bar raised. Policy is WP:V which was met. The counter-"sources", with the exception of Zero's link below, don't hold water. It's a decent thing that User:‎Underlying lk was kind enough to actually explain what the issues are. You should've tried that first instead of dodging the question. It was a simple one.--v/r - TP 14:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Blueboar is as much involved in edit-warring as ‎Underlying lk is. At RSN, Blueboar has failed to receive any support for his position. Reports here are not supposed to be for the purpose of winning edit wars after failing to achieve consensus. I first saw the argument at RSN (having had no involvement in freemasonry articles and barely any interest in the subject) and consider that the evidence regarding Ataturk is highly suspect. Some books and an article by senior freemasons claim that Ataturk was a freemason, with none of them mentioning the basis for their claim (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, of the vast number of academic studies of Ataturk, nobody (again correct me if I'm wrong) has found even one making the claim. A book published by the Turkish government example claims he was not a freemason (but such books are also suspect, for different reasons). These guys should seek mediation or something. Zerotalk 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm, Zero, did you read that? It says "For Mustafa Kemal, who was not a Freemason..." It didn't claim Ataturk wasn't a freemason at all.-v/r - TP 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm, TP, you do know that Mustafa Kemel is Ataturk? Paul B (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not.--v/r - TP 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Something to note... there is a strong Anti-Masonic movement in the Islamic world (where Freemasonry is associated with a "Jewish conspiracy")... and thus there is a concerted POV effort to reject the idea that Ataturk might have been a Freemason at some point in his life. Whether this factors into the edit warring at the article I will not say, but it should be considered at least a possibility. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That argument cuts both ways. Islamists who see Ataturk as an evil agent of secularisation want to say he was Freemason, which is just as likely to be the origin of an erroneous meme as denial of it is. Likewise Freemasons have a motivation to associate their organisation with the modernising values of Ataturk. It's easy to understand how the involement of Freemasons in the Young Turks (which is undisputed) can slide into the assumption that Ataturk himself was a Mason. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If I search for Ataturk and freemason, I get a hit from Radio Islam and a website called atajew.com on the first page of google. So at least we know some of those who might have interest in promoting that. And how great Google Panda is (or not). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
And if the article attempted to use such sources, I would be the first to say the entry should be deleted. The fact is, the sources that support Ataturks inclusion on the list have no axe to grind. They are reliable secondary sources written by very respected Masonic historians.
But I did not raise this dispute here to argue sources... I raised this dispute here so admins could examine an editor's behavior. As I said in my opening comment... I have attempted to resolve this dispute in multiple ways... when User:‎Underlying lk challenged a source, I went and found a different source. When that was not good enough, I found a third. When he/she quibbled that the sources disagreed over the specific lodge, I agreed to omit mentioning the specific lodge... still not good enough. Every time I have attempted to resolve the situation to his/her satisfaction, he/she sets the bar higher. It's become clear that he/she is not interested in anything other than removing the entry for POV reasons. That's a 'behavioral' issue, not a sourcing issue... and that behavioral issue is why I raised this here at ANI. I would like it to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You only came here because you didn't get the 'right' answer at RSN. You should be mindful of your own highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour, rather than blaming others.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No... I came here because of your behavior during our dispute. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You came here because you didn't get your way with either consensus or threats.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct to write that there is an anti-masonic movement in the Islamic world. It seems a lot of people in Turkey believe in conspiracy theories involving masons and Jews. In Turkey it is illegal to slander Ataturk (a ridiculous law from the 1950s I think) and calling him a mason has been judged by courts to be slander. That's why a government-published book about Ataturk is not reliable for a claim that he was not a mason. But, as someone wrote above, the same can be said for the masonic side of the story. How better to rehabilitate the image of masons in Turkey than to co-opt one of the most respected people in Turkish history? Where is the independent scholarly study of this question? Did Ataturk himself ever make a public statement about it? Zerotalk 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost continuous tirade of abuse and accusations[edit]

Both IPs blocked for 1 month for disruptive editing and continued personal attacks using multiple IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 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.

174.118.142.187 has engaged in an almost unbroken tirade of abuse and allegation. There has been considerable past incidents at which at least one admin has expressed concern, but it has reached unacceptable proportions in the last week or so. In response to an observation at Talk:Power factor that there was suspected sockpuppet activity ([17]), I myself had a similar suspicion and consequently opened an SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski - currently open). Since two further users have voiced their opinion that there is suspicious activity, this has reinforced my belief that it was correct to do so.

There follows, immediately abusive comments to the SPI ([18]) where in the first two paragraphs there are unfounded allegations and abuse (These same allegations have been going on for some time and are largely repeating allegations that he made at an SPI case - which was not upheld). They were certainly laid out at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 - deleted by an admin as WP:ATTACK. Some other comments in the SPI accused myself of 'slander' and myself and fellow editor of being 'hoodlums'.

Almost immediately, a tit-for tat ANI case is opened by 174.118.142.187. The case is nothing short of a continuance of the attacks and allegations, on not only myself but other users ([19]). The IP users concerned appear to be users of the same (very large) supplier of internet access in the UK. There appears to be a good number of them who edit on a wide variety of subjects. 174.118.142.187 seems to be unaware of how IP addresses are allocated here - he attempted to demonstrate dynamic allocation by temporarily hopping IP address. Unfortunately, he spoilt it when he was able to hop back to the original IP address, something that you cannot do with dynamic IP address allocation. You get what you are given.

His allegations involve myself, User:I B Wright and a large number of IP address users. I believe that he is picking these users because we have been particular targets of Wtshymanski (his Sandbox2 list of enemies made that perfectly clear) and consequently Wtshymanski attracts our interest. 174.118.142.187 seems to hold Wtshymanski in some kind of awe. He keeps claiming that we always agree (usually citing but one example if at all), but totally ignores those many occasions where we don't completely agree (of which there is no shortage). We largely do agree over Wtshymanski, but then there is plenty to agree about.

I did attempt to engage in discussion 174.118.142.187's talk page. I do not believe that I was abusive ain any way, but nevertheless, my remark was deleted with an abusive edit summary and more unwarranted accusations ([20]). Further he then responds to my own talk page (but from a different IP address that geolocates to exactly the same place) with the now trademark allegations an the last sentence ([21]).

The latest tirade was made to an admin's talk page ([22]). This admin responded to the tit-for-tat an ANI complaint that 174.118.142.187 made directly as a tit for tat response to the SPI.

Neither myself nor any user of Wikipedia should have to put up with this level of abuse and malicious allegations.

Housekeeping note: I B Wright and 174.118.142.187 notified of this ANI, but not the other IP addresses. The list has been erased, but I am not convinced any of them will see the notification anyway. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history there is no way this is a dynamic IP as the edit topics are always the same, and the IP has been editing their same incorrectly created sandbox (off a talk page rather than user page) since the 2nd of May. It's blatantly a static IP and always the same editor. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The Whatismyipaddress.com thing says it's static, too. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC).
I would block this IP for a year. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
And any accounts from the IP address as well, and account creation. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I just closed the SPI case. Based on my investigation, the named account and IPs are clearly not the same person. Anything done here should reflect that. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • With the caveat that I cannot comment on revision deleted material, I don't see 174.118.142.187 as being particularly disruptive. I just looked at his last 50 or so edits, and I just don't see it. He did have a SPI opened against him, with the result of "probably not connected", and he opened a SPI against another user, again with a result of "probably not connected". In the middle of this some harsh words were traded, but in my view someone who feels like he is being falsely accused and that an unfamiliar forum is being used against him can become understandably upset and should be given a lot of leeway. He also removed one talk page comment, and did not repeat that behavior once he was told that it is not allowed. I did far worse without being blocked in my first six months as an IP editor (this was almost seven years ago - does Wikipedia have a statute of limitations?). 174.118.142.187 does hold some fringe theories and has a bad case of "I didn't hear that" when anyone brings up the utter lack of sources supporting his theories, but so far this is nothing that cannot be handled with talk page discussion. I think everyone should just back off, they should ignore any final venting that 174.118.142.187 might do, and see if the situation will calm down and deescalate. I certainly don't see any need for administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not look back far enough. This tirade of abuse and accusation has not started recently, but has been going on almost unbroken since December 2012, just 2 months after 174.118.142.187 started editing for the first time. It was at this time that 174.118.142.187 started his list of Wtshymanski's enemies, but it was on his own talk page at that time. I had not included the earlier examples of abuse because I considered that the later examples were adequate without boring the pants off the admins. If you want more let me know. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And the abuse continues unabated. This latest example from my talk page ([23]) yesterday despite the hint posted (presumably by an admin) on his own talk page ([24]). It is posted from the alternative IP address, 174.118.156.9. It is worth a look though, if only for the admission of sockpuppetry. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic comment: I saw the title of this thread on my watchlist and thought "Finally! Someone is raising with the community exactly what I have had to endure for years now on this project." Community, I am of disappoint. Back to scheduled programming. Russavia (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Please note: I have refused to participate in the last few DieSwartzPunkt concerns raised during content disputes. It is not that I do not have a defence. This has become a regular occurrence and, again, in view of the lack of honest diffs usually provide by this editor, I have taken a lesson from another editor, to just ignore him (and I B Wright) and continue to attempt to improve WP and reduce the drama. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And when you do try to defend it is only an attempt to deceive. "Lack of honest diffs"? Do the eight (8) in this ANI count as a lack of diffs? Count 'em. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:00, 19 June 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 persistently adding promotional content and edit-warring.[edit]

Promo names softblocked by Qwyrxian. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 16:11, 19 June 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.

Main (problematic) users involved:

Other users involved:

Page involved:

Since February, Sheradio has been editing WSHE-FM to reflect a promotional viewpoint. This stopped for some time, but recently started up again this month. Earlier yesterday, Sheradio was reverted by Stereorock on the grounds that it was adding in promotional material. Sheradio started reverting him, as seen in the page history. Then Sheradio maliciously blanked Stereo's talk page before starting to edit-war with an administrator, leading to a block. Just before the block went into place on Sheradio, SOFLORADIO came along and picked up the same trend of promotional editing and edit-warring on the same article, leading to a block. Sheradio has shown a long history of promotional, unsourced, disruptive editing and may have created SOFLORADIO to circumvent the block. Both usernames on the accounts also appear to be somewhat promotional in nature. Neither account has made a single edit that has not been reverted for one reason or another, and I think both accounts qualify for indefinite blocks to prevent them from posting more and more promotional content. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cncmaster is correct on all accounts. My talk page info was deleted to just read the word "Welcome" as was stated above along with the promotional material they kept including on the WSHE-FM page reappearing. I see now both users have been suspended and/or deleted.Stereorock (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If both accounts pick up again, I'm going to open an SPI. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have indefniitely blocked Sheradio and SOFLORADIO. Both of the names are obviously promotional—the first for the article in question, the second for SoFloRadio, which is a second "internet only" (or wi-fi only, I'm not quite clear) radio station in southern Florida. It appears that the users were trying to somehow argue that the "real" station is no longer the one on the radio waves, but in fact the internet-only station, including lots of promotional links and non-neutral phrasing. I've added the article to my watchlist, though if another new editor pops up, feel free to take it directly to WP:RFPP in case I'm not around. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 18 June 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:NewWorriedLad and Talk:Ruggero Santilli[edit]

Dealt with. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 16:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could some uninvolved (and preferably not Jewish) admin look at this diff and take appropriate action. I think, at the least, an indefinite block, and a sockpuppet check is needed. Probably, it would be a good idea to remove his edits and my replies from that talk page, but, again, I would rather not do that myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for hate speech. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC).
And I've blanked the obnoxious stuff from the talkpage. I very much enjoyed doing both things, but admin-deleting the edits seems overly squeamish to me. It's good if any user who wonders about the block can see the edits in the history, IMO. If any admin disagrees, or if I'm reverted on the talkpage, feel free to delete the relevant revisions. But to request a sockpuppet check I think we need more info, Arthur. Checkuser needs two accounts/IPs, to compare, they can't do much with one. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

Whatever the context (and I haven't yet checked the diff above), I strongly object to the suggestion that a Jewish admin should not take action here. The implication that, by virtue of ethnic or religious background, an editor may be automatically biased, is one I find offensive in the extreme. I hope that I never see such a request again. RolandR (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Arthur Rubin is himself Jewish (as he says on his user page), so he clearly did not intend any anti-Jewish sentiment. I'm sure all he meant is that, as it was an anti-Jewish screed, it would avoid any hint of involvement or bias if a non-Jewish admin were to deal with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec, although Boing! said most of what I wanted to say.) NewWorriedLad is an avowed anti-Semite; it would play into his hands for a Jew to "persecute" him. It doesn't fall (yes, I said fall) to the level of WP:COI or WP:INVOLVED, but there's no need to encourage his belief that he is being persecuted by Jews, by, well, a justified persecution which happens to be by Jews. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I was shocked for a moment when I saw the request, but then I realised what Arthur meant, and didn't see any need to be PC about it. It gave me the sweet pleasure of being the one to block, too. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC).
This is getting close to an off-topic political conversation; but I must say that I disagree with the views above. I really don't think that the pernicious views of an antisemite should constrain any Jewish admin from acting as any other admin would do under the circumstances. I would be extremely uncomfortable if we started to create areas in which Jewish (or Muslim, gay, female or whatever) editors were recommended not to take action. RolandR (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't there a situation some time ago where an editor requested that a non-Jewish admin deal with it, as he didn't think a Jewish admin could be impartial? As I recall, that request was (rightfully) denied. I do understand Arthur's desire not to "play into the hands" of an anti-Semite, but we're not here to solve the problems of the world, or even of one extremely misguided editor, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and to protect that project from disruption. If a Jewish admin dealt with the situation, and the editor then created disruption about it, the editor can be indef blocked or banned, and the project goes on. I appreciate Arthur's concern, but think that RolandR is correct that we do not want to set up a situation where editors can specify what variety of admin they want to be helped by. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's be realistic. If a Jewish admin had blocked him, he next day he would be posting in his website new "proof" of how the Zionist cabal also controls wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.214.71 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but reading this editor's comments, it would appear that s/he identifies as a Jew. That is the only sense I can make of their repeated use of the word "us": "the price to be paid by all of us for our evident discrimination of non-Jewish scientists... a international waves of attacks against us,... our control of science... our control of the Nobel Foundation... the growing attacks against us for our 30 years of obstructions and discriminations you cannot dub “anti-Semitic” because fully justified... The consequences of the hatred we created against us by all Germans for our abuses of their country are sadly known" and more. This is not to deny that the remarks are offensive (they remind me of the position of Gilad Atzmon); but suggests that the situation here is more complicated than at first appears, and to my mind certainly invalidates a plea for Jewish admins to stay away. RolandR (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Does the race thing really matter for this anymore? I say no. Let's move on and not fret over unknowns or provoke more discussion on topics that should be avoided by friends, family and colleagues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 19 June 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.

Vandalism[edit]

Less than perfect but workable, practical and temporary solution. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 16:07, 19 June 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.

User "N1of2" is repeatedly reverting edits made to the page "Wayne Hoffman." They are removing information that is justified through reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.204.248 (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Hoffman&action=history

N1of2's edits aren't vandalism. The article appears to be poorly written and extremely POV. They've tightened the lede and removed WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact, such as:
Really? This guy can read people's minds and predict the color of MMs? N1of2 seems to be improving the article, although they might be a little too aggressive in what they are deleting.
In any case, I've notified N1of2 of this discussion.[25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks A Quest For Knowledge (talk) for bringing this thread to my attention. The article Wayne Hoffman was started by Waynemagic (talk) in 2009 who on the face of it appears directly related to the topic. The article contained extensive self-promotional unreferenced material in January 2013 when I started editing it; I tried to clean up the extreme POV and promotional language and bring it up to wikipedia standards. Over the past 6 months several IP editors (including 98.208.204.248 (talk) who started this thread above) repeatedly reverted to virtually the same original (promotional) version time and again (at times adding small edits in addition to the reversion), strongly suggesting sock puppetry. The promotional POV, original research, usage of primary sources, obscure citations and sparse reliable sources, lack of any discussion on those editors' part in the article's talk page, and the fact that some of those editors contribute exclusively to this article, reek of conflict of interest issues.
I suggest the admins to consider placing the article under some type of moderation (maybe [semi]-protect to only allow authenticated editors?). Since the topic is of particular interest to its subject (and / or other apparently related or interested editors) but is otherwise rarely of interest to others, the article tends to degrade rapidly to its slanted, POV, promotional version without close monitoring (as it was evident between 2009 and early 2013). I would also welcome any other alternative suggestions for ongoing maintenance / monitoring of the article. N1of2 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Notified Waynemagic of this discussion. [26] N1of2 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what difference it'll make: he hasn't edited in almost four years. — Richard BB 08:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Good grief, the edit history of this article is a mess. There's been a very clear back-and-forth of adding and deleting the same content for five months. Requesting immediate temporary semi-protection of article (even full protection wouldn't go amiss, though might be a bit extreme) in order to put an end to this debacle. — Richard BB 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As the dispute is between a registered editor and an IP editor (I have not looked to see who is right or wrong), a semi-protection would be favouring one side, so is not a valid solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has since been semi-protected. However, I disagree that it's not a valid solution: it would force the IP to create an account, which means that the edit warring would be much harder to perpetuate (provided both parties are equally warned for it as it happens, which has not been the case so far). — Richard BB 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I guess that's one approach - but I do have to say I personally don't like solutions that treat IP editors as second-class citizens. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it does. They're still able to debate on the talk page and would be able to edit if they created an account; this is preventative, not punitive. — Richard BB 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Before going on with hypothetical situations you should first check out the extreme promotional POV edits that this (these?) particular IP editor(s?) engaged in. In any event I am pleased with the contributions of the new editors that are now involved in the article and I am particularly thrilled that more people will keep this article on their watchlist :) N1of2 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 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.

confusion on everything[edit]

Answered. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 16:04, 19 June 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.

Dear Wikipedia very confused - set up user page and tried to do a wikipedia page - to post online .. can't find the answers i need on how to post online, does it need approval, how do i set up the references .. how can it be public ..??

username: najwa najjar

thank you Najwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa najjar (talkcontribs) 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But also read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to learn how to do inline references. Take a look at some existing Wikipedia:Good articles to see how articles should be laid out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good answers. I also recommend WP:Teahouse, which is full of volunteers waiting to answer any questions you have. They can sometimes find you a mentor to help you get up to speed as well. Glad to see you join the community. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 16:51, 18 June 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:Llibtrof and Metrication of British Transport[edit]

A new editor (User:Llibtrof) has taken it into his mind to make an addition to the article Metrication of British transport which I, along with four other well-established editors and have deemed to be inappropriate to the article as per policy WP:UNDUEUser:David Biddulph, User:The Rambling Man (an administrator) and I have reverted the changes. User:Steve Hosgood and User:Mcewan have given us backing on the article’s Talk page. This edit has been reverted 10 times] and the editor in question has been invited to address the WP:UNDUE matter both via his the Talk:Metrication of British transport#Road signs - height above sea level and his own talk page, but he is adopting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. Instead, an IP editor, who to date has never edited Wikipedia has reinstated the changes. I believe that the IP editor who reinstated the changes last night and this morning and the IP editor who added the changes in the first place is really User:Llibtrof.

These actions and the use of the abbreviation "POV" by User:Llibtrof here suggests to me that User:Llibtrof might be a sockpuppet of an established editor who has been banned from Wikipedia.

Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Like User:Rschen7754, I suspect that User:Llibtrof is a sockpuppet of DeFacto, (See below) but at the moment I cannot prove it. User:Ritchie333 might not be aware of all the details, so may I fill him in. User:DeFacto is a banned user who's sockpuppets have been popping up all the time. My initial brush with DeFacto came when he tried to make an addition to Metrication in the United Kingdom identifying one promotion campaign of one product line by one supermarket as being significant, just as User:Llibtrof is trying to make an issue surrounding one road sign that is not catalogued in the TSRGD. I objected on grounds of the policy on WP:UNDUE. I tried using WP:DRN to resolve the issue. Ritchie333 might care to look at the discussion. It spanned these six threads
  1. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
  2. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
  3. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
  4. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
  5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
  6. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys
DeFacto was banned shortly afterwards for gross disruption to Wikipedia.
In my overhaul of Metrication in the United Kingdom, the section on transport was threatening to become large, so I spun it off as a separate article Metrication of British Transport. Two attempts were made to kill the new article a deletion attempt and an attempt to Talk:Metrication of British transport/Archive 1#Merge discussion. The supporters of both actions were User:Pother, User:Ornaith, both sockpuppets of Defacto and one other editor.
The episode in January this year when I was blocked for 24 hours involved me making 3 (not 4) reversions within 24 hours of changes introduced by User talk:MeasureIT who was blocked at the same time. Three days later MeasureIT was banned as yet another sockpuppet of DeFacto.
Given the above background material, Ritchie333 might like to reconsider his posting. Martinvl (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
All the above put to one side, the simple facts are that two administrators thought you were edit warring. When you get involved in a dispute, you don't repeatedly override the other editor's contributions unless you are very sure they are bad faith, such as obvious vandalism or BLP violations. If they are bad faith, somebody else will probably restore the article anyway. By all means, come here and get him kicked for socking, but "he started it" and "it's the wrong version" never let your own behaviour off the hook. Be the better man. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense threats[edit]

Blocked. No longer a backlog at AIV. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 16:03, 19 June 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.

If AIV wasn't so backed up this probably would have been settled quickly with a user block: disruptive account making nonsense threats of kidnapping and torture [27]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Add 82.12.254.91 (talk · contribs) as an affiliated account. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Ladotelli123 has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. IP 82.12.254.91 is now stale so there's no need for immediate action. De728631 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:NFCR discussions in need of closure[edit]

All of the above are discussions which have exceeded the discussion period and need closed so that it can be resolved. Werieth (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor EyeTruth: tendenitious editing in Battle of Kursk page[edit]

A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. He has been reverting edits and is not waiting for a consensus of opinion from other editors. Some of the reverts include this: [28] and this: [29]. His tone on the talk page strikes me as condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Indeed, one or more admins/mods should look into this. Yes, I've reverted edits based on original research when the editor failed to discuss it in the talkpage. This editor is fond of inserting original material into cited passages or deleting cited passages based on his original research. And I've cleaned up many of such edits without even complaining. And no, my tone was never intended to be condescending. And yes, my tone has been dismissive towards this editor until he supports his opinion with sources, which he has almost always failed to do. And yes, I've been cautioned by others for being superfluous with my writing and wiki-linking, and I've conceded on that. Granted, I did question the reasoning behind their suggestions, but since it harboured even a modicum of sense and was also in accordance with MOS I conceded, before my scrutiny is misunderstood as lack of cooperation. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the edit that EyeTruth believed consititued original research on my part: [30]
The key porition was:
It was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive.[1] Even so, Hitler and several senior officers expressed doubts and concern.
which I reduced to:
It was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive.[1]
The phrase "most impressive fleet" was exchanged for the phrase "largest assemblage". Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But it was not correct, yet you fiercely defended it. And that is just one instance among others. You are fully aware of this. Besides, why do you keep attaching that extra sentence as if it's part of my edit? Why are you trying so hard to distort the issue? Why?!! You're aware any admin that is going to attend to this report will most likely read the relevant talkpages, right? So why?!!! EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-admin observation So I searched around for the source in question and found it here [31]. The exact wording in the source is "Thus, the Germans amassed the most impressive armored armada yet assembled for a single attack." So the source does not say "largest assemblage." However, it seems to me that "most impressive fleet" may just be Glantz's opinion, and I would say that unless a source can be found for "largest," the sentence should be removed altogether. There's probably more to the dispute than the one sentence, but I just thought I'd share my two cents. Howicus (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The sentence had already been removed by Gunbirddriver. But as you suspected, the dispute is more than that. Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do. EyeTruth (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NLT violation[edit]

Legal threat made by User talk:RJMI in this diff: [32] Ravenswing 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"If the references to Richard Ibranyi are not put back in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article, I will try to contact the owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and have you removed as an administrator because you will then be a twice-convicted liar and thus a very un-credible person to decide who or what can be allowed in an encyclopedia. If the owner does not correct it, then he will stand accused of the same." Easily meets WP:NLT. And their User page is not really helping matters... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Also: Considering that this was the account's first edit we may need to check at WP:SPI in case there are more accounts... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Therefore your removing Richard Ibranyi as a former member and thus implying he was not a former member is a bold-faced black lie which makes Richard look like a liar instead of you. Hence, if he had the time, money, and desire, he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation," being the actual passage I had in mind, since the editor wound up his long tale by claiming that he was himself Ibranyi. Ravenswing 02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed that part among the WP:TLDR! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Um .. since when is "threatening" to go to Jimbo considered a violation of WP:NLT? Since, um, never. The usual response to such blowhard-like activity is "well, I have policy and links to support me ... so go ahead, and WP:ANI is thisaway, or WP:RFC/U is thataway" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure, maybe "he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation" refers to a basketball court... or a food court! We need to consider all the possibilities! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the whole statement includes having time and/or money, with a big "IF" at the beginning. He's not trying to chill discussion, he's trying to promote himself ... in 3rd person too. He quite clearly does not make a legal threat because he says he cannot afford to do it! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, seems like RJMI is just trying to use WP for attention seeking and self promotion, revert his edits reasonably and if he ends up edit warring report him for 3RR. The SPI if had proper diff's might have been valid, but also the three different user-ids though pointing to the same kind of edits might have been just one of his friends or colleagues. Amit (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Which, nonetheless, is a violation of WP:SOCK. There are four accounts, all opening within a week of one another, all with much the same editing pattern, all discussing the same fringe personality and the same two fringe subjects. Whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, it's all the same. Ravenswing 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just blocked Russavia indefinitely[edit]

There is little doubt at this point that Spartaz's indefinite block of Russavia has overwhelming support. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 19 June 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.