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.
Hello. So, maybe someone should take a look at this page diff here, probably sooner than later: . Haldrik (talk·contribs) has long been an advocate of some pet theories involving dwarfs in Norse mythology as vampire-like beings (human sized with pale skin and dark hair and an associated with matters deathly). To promote this notion, he's constructed a big web of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that he will unrelentingly re-add to the article, often without reference. He's been repeatedly called out on it at the talk page currently at Talk:Dwarf (Norse mythology) for years by several users outside of myself. It appears that over time he's decided to simply slide into anonymous IP mode (this is probably him) and not bother with the talk page, even when asked to explain himself. Finally, once work began on the article again when the Tolkienism of "dwarves" vs. popular usage of "dwarfs" came to fore, he's flipped out and just replaced the redirect with a rant against me. You're welcome to peruse the appropriate talk pages. I've rewritten many related articles to WP:GA specs over the years. This is a strange case that has resulted in a fair amount of wasted time better spent elsewhere. I've been trying to build off an appropriately referenced, scholarly core, but with some guy inserting this stuff, it isn't getting very far from that. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just warned Haldrik for attacking you in article-space and will block him if he does so again. The IP has been warned for edit warring, so I'll block if it reverts again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like he just pasted the attack here instead: . :bloodofox: (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just given him some advice on my talk page, hopefully he'll take it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP address 126.96.36.199 is being used anonymously, but based upon contribution history appears to be used by an employeee of The Color Run LLC to make changes to the page The Color Run.
I have added criticism of The Color Run LLC to the page and this has been removed several times with no explanation or debate to validity of the criticism. The criticism is factual, impartial and is referenced.
I would suggest that the user 188.8.131.52 is blocked until they agree to comply with Wikipedia policy, particularly the editing of a page for self-promotion usage.
Two things: they've done it twice, and if they keep doing it you can report them at WP:AIV. Second, this is a reliable source? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
First point - thanks, if it continues I'll go there. Second point - I understand your reservations given the blog's appearance, but when I dug deeper into the matter, there is evidence to corroborate the 70% - 20% - 10% comment. The Color Run has announced via social media commentary (scroll down a bit, use find command for 'profit') that they contribute approximately 10% of their profits to a nominated charity. Further to that, I found that the Cairns Hillbilly blog is pretty solid in calling things before the mainstream news catches on. Jez Bridges (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Drmies is sometimes (though not always) dry and restrained in his commentary. That is not a reliable source and should not be used on Wikipedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I thought it may be borderline. I tracked down a couple of news articles that discuss charity contribution and have cited them instead. As it so happens, the amounts cited in the news articles are way below 10%, which I guess is harsher criticism. No discussion of operating costs and held back profit so I just removed that piece of discussion. Jez Bridges (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Some blogs are better than others for off-Wikipedia reading and enjoyment. But self-published blogs are never, ever a reliable source for anything whatsoever on Wikipedia, except for the personal opinions of the blogger. For any factual assertions, we need reliable sources with professional editorial control and an established reputation for fact checking and error correction. 99.9% of blogs fail that test. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Will keep it in mind in the future. Jez Bridges (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The Sacramento Bee source quotes random uninformed people on the street who assumed that it was a charity event. The Syracuse.com source talks about some people criticicizing the event, but does not identify the people, characterize them, or quote them. This seems like thin soup to me. Why should a profit making business be criticized on Wikipedia because some random or unidentified people think they probably ought to donate more money to charity than they actually do? Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Both articles cite figures in terms of donations in the same region (2-3% of total revenue). That is the point being cited. As far as general criticism of the event - I could cite half a dozen more articles that cover similar points (people being surprised at for-profit status) but I stuck to articles that were talking about how much was being donated. Either way, there is criticism of the event by reputable sources. Jez Bridges (talk) 04:50, 6 August 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.
Praveenant (talk·contribs) has been removing content on corruption from Government of India because, as he said on my talk page, "Every Country has their negatives all cannot be part of a generic article which could affect the growth or view of other of a country, That is against the country sovereignty. Kindly ignore content wich could affect mass people." His latest removal of the content included a legal threat in the edit summary, and I'd already issued a final warning. I might be WP:INVOLVED, so I leave it to another admin's discretion as to whether or not it's time for a block. Qwyrxian (talk)
"Offender"... Nice one, you're outdoing yourself :-D I'd like to request the moderators and editors to go through the lengthy talk page for Haredi Judaism to understand the context of what's going on. Chesdovi and I have been running an 'Edit War' for quite a while now, and I gather one needs to understand the reasons and background before making a decision on how to intervene (the entire conflict is well documented on the aforementioned talk page). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding this a bit hard to decode. Bluestein does seem to me to have some policy issues and is probably too reliant on his local knowledge of the Israeli scene; on the other hand it seems possible that Chesdovi's perspective is a bit, well, colored. I am tempted to conclude that Bluestein's views may be correct but that he is having trouble proving them according to our standards. There surely must be other editors who do read Hebrew (which I do not) who could mediate this, but it seems quite problematic to have the content of what is after all a pretty important Judaism/Israeli topic determined by an edit war between only two people. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. The sourcing is bad enough already, with a ton of bare URLs, commentary in the notes, lengthy quotes, doubtful sources, etc. I've removed a few of the more egregious citations. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Drmies do you read and understand Hebrew? Cadencool 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I sure don't! Good thing that's not important here. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Drmies - you've deleted a few ref/cite that were from Jewish Halacha. It is a primary source for ALL religious Jews (not just Haredim), and for many Haredim it's more important than even the Old Testament. Knowledge of Hebrew is required with regard to that last edit you made, because there were culturally-bound and complex Hebrew quotes there. Please refer to the talk page if you wish to discuss this. Other edits you made I agreed and went along with. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I can give it to you in a couple of languages (Hebrew not included), here and on the talk page, but my edit summary is quite clear, I believe. This is original research. What you need are reliable sources that provide an interpretation of sacred text as it applies to the particular denomination under discussion. No knowledge of Hebrew is required; indeed, if knowledge of Hebrew were required it would only prove my point. See WP:PRIMARY. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The editor also appears to be on 4RR today. I have left a warning rather than blocking, but am going to look at the article now and will revert back to the main version if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The usual way of handling such sources in almost all contexts is to give the English version in the article, preferably from a standard translation that can be cited as such, and then the original language source in parentheses or as a footnote. Since this is the English WP, it is always necessary to give an English translation. I can't think it a good idea to take comment on the sources only from Rabbis speaking or posting on the internet, but from reliable conventionally published sources as well. (& I think some Haredi commentary is in fact published in English) One key reason for this is that not all groups use the internet, so their views will not be included)
More generally: there is a difficulty in all articles like this of giving representative views--there are as many interpretations as there are religious Jews, and to say that a particular publication is the mainstream source is extremely difficult. It's particularly difficult giving a reason for a custom, because I think sources typically give as many different reasons as possible, and it is not easy to pick one to identify as the usual reason. There is an inevitable tendency to give the views of the authorities whose opinions one personally follows, and those like myself not fully literate in the tradition may not be able to tell this. There is a particular danger especially for those outside the tradition of picking what seems the most "quotable" comments, which can mean the ones that one thinks illustrates the weird or picturesque or extreme behavior of others. (and this can be a problem if one relies on English journalistic sources).
Certainly, however, it is wrong to refer to the Hebrew WP as an authority; it's no more authoritative than we are. Those who wish to see it can follow the usual interwiki links. There is however a way of giving WP:Soft redirects. The guideline currently says those to other language WPs should be avoided "because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." The key word here is "generally"--I think there will be reasonable exceptions. But I do not think we ever refer in text or a reference to another WP.
I think however it is reckless to remove or edit material in a language one does not understand, and I think it abusive to edit--especially to edit sensitive material--on a subject or a culture or subject one does not know or where one cannot read the sources. I've made formatting edits on such material, and sometimes corrected English grammar, or copy-pasted a name or a title, but beyond that it's risky doing even what seems like obvious clarifications. Yet how can we leave such editing to the supporters, or the opponents, or a tug of war between the two? The only solution is to rely upon neutral scholarship, but it isn;t necessarily easy to find scholarship that everyone regards as neutral. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion on the specific issue here, but I do read Hebrew. It's late now, but tomorrow I could review these challenged edits and offer an opinion. At a first glance, however, it appears that the only use made by Jonathan Bluestein of Hebrew Wikipedia is to link to a photo. If that is the only cross-wiki link, there will surely be a way (through Commons, possibly) to use this photo legitimately in the article. RolandR (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I misfiled the SPI (sorry) but JoshuSasori has again confessed to attempting to evade his block. No one else calls me "Trollvenlout". He's still monitoring my edits, so there's no need to inform him of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Bagworm engaging in grave-dancing/harassment
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.
Hey, Hijiri88/Konjakupoet here. As some of you may know, I was run off Wikipedia by a disruptive user who contacted my office and started incessantly hounding me on- and off-wiki between January and April. (If you want details please e-mail my original account.) I came back under a different name in April but when another user (now also blocked) reported on me the off-wiki harassment continued.
I have since been editing intermittently on various short-term accounts and IPs, not so much to "get revenge" or right old wrongs, but just when I was reading Wikipedia and noticed a mistake somewhere. I have no interest in returning to actively editing Wikipedia under a stable account at least as long as that user is (probably) still watching.
However, I have noticed something disturbing since leaving. User:Bagworm has been "grave-dancing", apparently having found that I had retired and would be unable to defend my old edits. He had been disputing content and/or edit-warring with me a few times between September and December of last year. It got to the point where he attempted to unilaterally ban me from editing poetry articles, probably so he could undo all my previous edits to these articles.
(No specific evidence that this was his intention, but when I posted this on my user page, it took him only seven hours to remove a "citation needed" tag I had added to one such article, based on the flimsy excuse that his other primary sources were adequate.)
After Bagworm realized he wouldn't be able to get rid of me (in all of our disputes I was the one with the better sources, and I was always ready to patiently discuss on the talk page, even if he wasn't), he apparently retired from Wikipedia, not making a single edit for almost four months. About 30 minutes after coming back, Bagworm undid an edit I had made under my second acocunt.
I had removed a questionable citation of an online poetry mag (when he retired, we still had not reached any kind of consensus as to whether these were acceptable citations). I had not added any citation needed tag, since the statement is one of the most easily verifiable in all of Japanese literary scholarship, and could be checked in any good book on the subject. It therefore seemed inappropriate to include a link to an online American poetry magazine with little general relation to the topic of the article (waka and haiku are different genres).
Evidence of harassment is provided below. I tried to be VERY thorough so the post is LONG.
NOTE: The following is a LONG explanation of Bagworm's grave-dancing. I hope not to be ignored based on TLDR, so I'm separating the specific details (with all the diffs) by asterisks for those interested.
He also undid several edits I had made months earlier to the article Haiga, which is about a Japanese style of painting ("hai-ga" means "haiku picture" or "picture in a haiku style", or some such), but Bagworm and one other user (who has since been indefinitely TBANned from Japanese literature) were insisting that haiga is any picture that is combined with a haiku.
Ironically this edit summary seems to imply that English-language refs are inherently superior to non-English refs, even Japanese refs when writing about a Japanese topic, which is a gross misunderstanding of WP:NONENG. But this edit added a German-language ref to an article on Japanese painting. And given that this was added directly in response to my asking for a reference, it would have been nice if he stuck with ones in languages I can understand.
At the article Haikai, I had removed a number of other not-necessarily-reliable online poetry mags. Meaning no insult to Associate Professor Crowley, who seems like she knows what she's talking about, it just seemed very odd to me to be quoting an website that mainly deals in modern American poetry for the dictionary definitions of Classical Japanese words, especially when we already cited a reference to a book by the exact same author, through a reputable academic publisher. This is why I stated in my edit summary "unnecessary [...] used when other, valid sources were already in use". In my opinion if we are going to add a second reference, it should be to one that is better than Crowley's book (a Japanese dictionary used by native scholars, and probably also by Crowley herself, for instance), not an online English-language poetry magazine. This did not stop Bagworm from undoing me, though.
The redirecting of tinywords was a potentially controversial issue, and one that if I were still active on Wikipedia I probably would have been ready to compromise on if challenged and if presented with reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. But in this case the redirect was not challenged for almost three months, and when it was it was done by an obvious COI user whose username indicates that he is the owner of the website in question. The only other users who opposed the redirect were Bagworm, in yet more gravedancing and with an ad hominem remark about how I am "sarcastic" (given how much bull I had to put up with from Bagworm and other users like him, can you blame me for being suspicious of articles like that?).
When I reverted this gravedancing under my cellphone's IP, as no reasonable evidence had been advanced to justify the reversion of a redirect that had been stable for three months, he reverted again. I was reverted again by the COI user.
I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about "edit-warring" or "sockpuppetry": BRD obviously applies, and the three-month old redirect, when BOLDly removed and then REVERTed, should have been DISCUSSed on the talk page before being reverted back. Further, Bagworm knew perfectly well why I was using a shifting IP, as when he first attempted toOUT me under one of my temporary accounts I had e-mailed him explaining the circumstances and the danger of his trying to connect my new account with my old one. Further, more than one admin had told me by e-mail or by reverting outing attempts on this and other forums that it was okay under my circumstances to keep maximum anonymity.
Anyway, regardless of which side was "right" in the ensuing edit-war (I'll apply that terminology if no one tries to shift the blame inappropriately onto me -- the incident took place because Bagworm was engaged in a grave-dancing campaign to begin with).
Also, obvious meat-puppetry was taking place, as before long a third user showed up completely out of the blue to revert me again, this time a Romania-based IP (who I can't contact off-wiki to give the complete explanation of why I was editing under IPs) and as their first edit decided to revert me with the aggressive edit summary "Revert repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor". It seems obvious that either the COI user or Bagworm contacted a friend of theirs off-wiki in order to help in the reversion campaign.
And this Romanian IP has in fact continued to seize as many opportunities as possible to harass me and attempt to out me, even going so far as to hijack an ANI thread in an apparent attempt to use a clear-cut POV/source-abusing/edit-warring issue as an excuse to out the good guy who reported it. The Romanian IP has since registered as User:Someone not using his real name.
My edit to the Senryū article was another in the series of removals of questionable online poetry mags, and Bagworm's reversion was another in his series of grave-dancing personal attacks.
Other users can disagree with me on the substance (the issue was, as noted above, never resolved), but no one can argue that reverting a bunch of my edits after I was hounded off Wikipedia isn't slimy at best.
The Renku reversion is another.
Again, saying absolutely nothing about Professor Horton's credentials or reliability, I just don't think that we should include information that has only ever appeared in an online poetry mag published by an accountant and someone whose professional bio doesn't mention any qualifications in Japanese language, literature or history, and if it has appeared in more trustworthy sources, then we should be citing those instead.
He has become more aggressive recently, constantly reverting my IP on the article Waka (poetry) and insisting (bizarrely) that there was "consensus" at Talk:Haiku#Simply Haiku and Frogpond as sources? that the defunct online poetry mag Simply Haiku is a reliable source, completely ignoring my argument that a modern American haiku magazine is not an appropriate reference for an article on classical Japanese waka.
In fact, the only user other than me who posted on the talk page section in question was Icuc2, who agreed that online poetry mags were inferior to books and academic journals, and only need be used when better sources are not available. In this case, another, better source was already in use, a fact which I pointed out several times.
Bagworm, however, has reverted my removal of the inappropriate link some four times.
He also keeps trying to change the subject, by insisting that the author of the piece is a renowned Japanologist, even though my problem is that the we shouldn't be including links to haiku magazines in articles on waka unless there is some necessity to do so.
I have mentioned a few times in this post that I have been engaging in "sock-puppetry". It needs to be noted that I have never cast more than one !vote or anything of that ilk, and have only been doing this to protect myself from the off-wiki harassment of a certain user.
I know, given the circumstances, that this may be a little difficult to accept, so I'm taking the liberty of contacting a few users (Lukeno94, Cuchullain, Yunshui, In ictu oculi and Drmies) who are more familiar with the background of why I retired initially than most Wikipedians, and can verify my claims regarding "sockpuppetry".
I am also, of course, contacting Bagworm, Dtweney and Someone not using his real name to allow them to explain themselves if they so choose.
What I request from the Wikipedia community is a TBAN on Bagworm from "Japanese literature", broadly construed, similar to the one that was placed on his co-edit-warrior Tristan noir for similarly slimy actions.
This may seem somewhat extreme, but the user has done little for JLit articles, as far as I can see, other than remove verifiable information under the flimsy excuse that a "citation needed" tag had been on it for a certain length of time, add questionable sources to statements that either don't need them or need good sources, and edit-war with me/dance on my grave. The one or two semi-decent articles he started in this area don't stack up against the contributions I made and he is preventing me from continuing to make.
(I already provided evidence of Bagworm's practice of removing information under flimsy excuses here.)
Abridged version: I am a secondary account of a user who was forced off Wikipedia by a very disturbed user. After my main account retired, another user (Bagworm) started reverting a large number of my edits that he had failed to undo while I was still active. The user's disruptive edits are all in the area of Japanese literature, an area to which he has not contributed anything of note in at least a year. I would therefore like a TBAN imposed. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I reject the paranoid accusations of conspiracy leveled at me by the latest incarnation of Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian and his other "alternate accounts"/sockpuppets in the collapsed section above. I simply told him that if he wants the tinywords article deleted, he needs to follow procedure and take it to AfD, instead of edit warring with multiple IP socks. See the talk page there where he failed to participate, while edit warring from IPs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I'm not here to argue with you. You've made decent contributions since then, and I have no serious beef with you. I merely brought you up to provide a fuller context to what was obviously part of a larger harassment campaign by Bagworm. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Coldman/Jubei the Samurai/Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/182.249.241.* wants me TBanned because some of my edits have run contrary to his? Cos that's all the above seems to me to add up to. Pinch me, someone. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a pretty huge chunk of your edits, and it's likely well over-half of your Japanese literature edits since you came back in April. And going around misrepresenting talk page discussions in order to revert the edits of another user who you just don't like is extremely disruptive. You have misrepresented the discussion between Konjakupoet and Icuc2 as forming some kind of "consensus" in favour of Simply Haiku, regardless of context, numerous times. You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like, and not provide any valid justification. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like". Please don't pretend you have some special insight into what motivates another editor; your wholly subjective assertions do not count for anything. Yes, some of my edits have been to text you previously edited. So what? Remember what it says at the top of every edit window at WP?: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Just because you edited articles in an area in which I've long been active doesn't give you OWNership. Please get real here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
As for hounding, it is Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian/Eh doesn't afraid of anyone who followed me to a UAA report, trying to prevent one of his POV pushing Japanese nationalist wikially and spammer from being rightfully blocked Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Dude, you followed me to ANI first, solely in order to make a completely off-topic attack against me. And I already said I have nothing against you. What's the deal? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait -- Japanese nationalist wikispammer allies!? Do you know anything about my edit history?? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not follow you to ANI. I participate on ANI regularly. Do note that I supported the topic ban on the Korean POV pusher you reported to ANI. Do you participate in UAA regularly, "dude"? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been referenced here, and I'm going to make my comment. There is no question that JoshuSasori hounded Hijiri88, and that they continued to do so a long time after they were community banned. Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits. As to the exact topic dispute, I can't profess to have any knowledge whatsoever about who is right; this is most certainly not my area of expertise. I don't know much about the Romanian IP/"Someone not using his real name" part of the debate. I will say this, with regards to the Waka (poetry) edit referenced here (about the reference, ironically) - why the hell are people edit warring over whether to have one or two references for this? One should be sufficient, unless the other one is needed to try and further prove notability of the topic (which isn't an issue here) or the statement is controversial (which I'm assuming this isn't; again, I lack knowledge on this area, so feel free to correct me.) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Lukeno94. However, your sweeping assertion, "Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits." appears to show a complete lack of AGF. "revert them because of who made the edits" - that is deeply offensive and absolutely groundless, and I would urge you to offer supporting evidence or withdraw the offensive remark. I most certainly do not stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have no personal quarrel with Hijiri, and only in the last day or so did I become aware that the IP edit-warring at Talk:Waka (poetry) was actually him. If you're looking for real evidence of harassment, it can easily be found: Hjiri/Jubei/124 has in the last two days twice removed my posts to Talk:Waka (poetry), here and here He seems to be confused and is claiming that I edited his comments, which I certainly did not. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me. I accidentally posted an unfinished comment while logged in to an account that I was keeping separate primarily to avoid accidentally outing an unrelated user. My phone is not the ideal way to edit Wikipedia, but thanks to JoshuSasori it's the only way I can do so without either setting up another named account for him to harass, or giving away my home IP. None of this was a justification for you to constantly revert my tweaking my own comment. I had no way of reverting your editing of my comment without also deleting your reply (again, phone), but I made it clear that you could restore your comment if you wished. Your continuing to claim that you have a right to revert my finishing my own comment is essentially claiming that it's OK for you to edit my comments, but not for me to edit my own.
Plus, your assertion that Luke is violating AGF is made without evidence. I provided probably too much evidence that you were harassing me, and you have yet to provide any evidence at all that this is not what you were doing. Can you explain why almost all of your Japanese literature edits since April (or last November?) are direct reverts of edits I made? Can you explain why you consistently avoid directly addressing my arguments, and instead focus on straw-man issues like whether such-and-such author knows what (s)he's talking about? It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits, and you think that since the account that made all those edits between 2005 and 2013 is now permanently retired you will be able to get away with it. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me" - How could that possibly be "obvious"? Though the IP's behaviour was reminiscent of yours, I had no way of knowing Jubei was you until you owned up. That's yet another irrelevance anyway, since I'm not questioning your motives in using multiple accounts here. What I do know is that you are the one repeatedly deleting my Talk posts in direct contravention of WP:TALKNO, and whatever technical straws you clutch at doesn't alter that. You keep making the accusation that I edited your posts. Please show a diff or withdraw this false accusation.
"It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits. No it is not "obvious" because it is simply not true. Please desist from making such purely subjective non-AGF assertions. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You are trying to game the system by sticking to the letter of TALKNO and ignoring the actual purpose of the guideline. "I am only able to edit from my phone, and I can't copy or paste" is a good enough reason to blank-revert when someone else edits my comment. Slyly sticking in a separate comment in the same edit as altering my comment is your fault, not mine. I told you you were free to re-add your own comment, but I asked you several times to stop altering my comment. You refused until you were left with no other choice, and even then continued to insist that I was "repeatedly removing" your comments.
Exactly how is my asserting the broader definition of haiga by Haruo Shirane, Shincho Professor at Columbia University, probably the top scholar in Japanese literature in the U.S. at this time, a "flimsy excuse"? It is becoming increasingly clear that you've raised this ANI because my edits impinge on your sense of WP:OWNership of these articles which I've been editing since long before you took an interest in them. Not because of harassment (because there isn't any), not because of grave-dancing (as pointed out by DrMies, there isn't any). What a waste of administrators' (and my) time. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Not true. What you have evidenced is simply a disagreement between us over the interpretation of a respected scholar's statements. That is nothing more than a content dispute, and your bringing it up here clearly supports my contention that your only motive for this ANI is a sense of impingement on your wp:OWNership of articles which I've been editing much longer than than you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not about different interpretations. You misrepresented the citation, and then when I pointed out to you that Shirane clearly doesn't mean what you want him to you ignored me. Clearly you want Shirane to agree with your online poetry mags, when in fact he agrees with the actual definition of the Japanese word as given in Japanese dictionaries. I.e., he agrees with me. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's just cut to the chase here: nominate the article for AfD instead of this proxy war by trying to determine who "hounded" who in an obvious content dispute. Bagworm is a fan and editor of Japanese-style literature in American venues. It's pretty transparent that Hijiri88 & co. have been campaigning to delete such articles. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Bagworm first edited that article in 2008 . When did the many accounts of Hijiri88 edit it first? The earliest I could find was 2013 , but it's possible he used another account name before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read the comment you are replying to. This thread is not about tinywords, and I already specified that that's a sidenote here. The article Lukeno is commenting on is Waka (poetry) -- an article I created. I never said Bagworm "followed" me to the tinywords article, merely that he only reverted me for the same reason he reverted all those other edits -- he could. Now can we please get back on topic? This thread is not and never has been about tinywords in particular. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No it's not. It's a bulk, specious complaint from yourself claiming you are being hounded by a conspiracy of editors, among which you have named me. I have never edited Waka (poetry). So why did you choose to name me in your complaint then and allege I conspired with others if it's all about waka now? Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Quick comment: "gravedancing" implies you're dead. You're clearly not dead, so technically there can be no gravedancing. And typically we take that to mean things like making fun of a "dead" editor on their talk page, etc. Edit-warring (if that's what it is) with a retired account the editor of which is still active is not the same as gravedancing, and it's not necessarily harassment. Correct me if I'm wrong: we're really talking about possible WP:HOUNDING, no? I noted one more thing in clicking through the diffs: Hijiri's opponents have a knack (and, historically, have had a knack) for using minor publications and webzines, to the point of promotion. That tinywords article is one of them--but that's by the by.
I don't have all the time and attention in the world right now, but I'll get back to this. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
DrMies, the only other contributor to suggest hounding is Lukeno94 (without a shred of evidence), and I have roundly provided evidence to the contrary above. What is your motivation in persisting with this groundless accusation? I most certainly do not stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. So, if I'm not grave-dancing, and not hounding, what exactly are we doing here? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Eh, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, where did I accuse you of anything? Will you care to actually read what I wrote (I didn't think it was too long to read), or are you just going to open your spout and vent baselessly? (Hint: note the word "possibly".) Drmies (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, DrMies. I struckthrough the offending text yesterday, but just saw your note now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Just because I'm a bit of an asshole doesn't mean I always act like one. :) Drmies (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
My experience is gravedancing on wikipedia is much more commonly taken to mean harassing or continuing to comment on, make fun of or try to shine a spotlight on an editor who is indef blocked or banned, or even simply temporarily blocked where it serves no useful purpose. Sometimes also a topic banned editor in relation to their topic ban. It may also apply to a retired editor in some cases. A key point is generally whether or not the actions are perceived to serve any useful purpose as when they are not, continueing to pursue the issue which has already gone against the editor on some way, is seen as pointless and harmful when the editor is either unable or justifiably has no reason to respond. See for example Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing or do a search for grave dancing on the ANs archives. While it' s true this isn't quiet the same as gravedancing is generally defined and used elsewhere outside wikipedia processes, and it's true doing the same for a dead editor is likely to be also seen as a different very serious form of grave dancing, the other use is not something that comes up very often. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Nil Einne, please see this thread for the reason why my main account is no longer able to defend its edits. Bagworm has known about this since at least early May, when I e-mailed him. He has, however, persisted in undoing a significant number of my edits that he disagreed with, and when I try to revert on my phone, he dismisses me as some kind of IP-hopping vandal. He has not provided any valid arguments for his removals, because he apparently thinks he can get away with it now that my original account is retired. I considered this to be "grave-dancing", but I'm happy to use "hounding" instead. (If you want to know why I can't just set up another account or go back to my original one, I would be happy to e-mail you. Revealing it here would be self-outing.) Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I most certainly have not been hounding Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. Neither have I been grave-dancing even by Nil Einne's definition, since (as pointed out by DrMies) Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman is manifestly still active on the general topic. So please, someone tell me, what are we doing here, apart from wasting each others' time? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
So the fact that your first edit in four months was a revert on something Hijiri wrote is pure coincidence? Hmm. And I'm the King of Turkmenistan. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? My first edit in 4 months (April 2013) was this one to Bruce Ross where AFAIK none of Hijiri/Coldman's sockpuppets have ever edited. I then made 5 edits, all clearly constructive, to Haiku in languages other than Japanese, where Hijiri was the last previous editor. Did I make any attempt to revert his efforts there? No, because they were constructive and helpful. What does it take for you to get that I am not interested in reverting his work for the hell of it? Please check your facts in future before making baseless allegations, and note that your WP:SARCASM is entirely inappropriate to this discussion. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You made a few small edits to that and one other article and then went straight ahead to undo one of my edits that had already been discussed, with my POV coming out on top. As far as I can see, almost all of your edits that were not reversions of me were not in the area of Japanese literature. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted one of your edits. So what? The rationale was clear, as I pointed out at the time. Obviously we interpreted the discussion at the Haiku talk page differently. Is this really what you're wasting admins' time with? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Allow me further note, as a rebuttal of the spurious claim of hounding/harassment/personal vendetta, that I have had substantial, productive interaction with Coldman's sock, Sarumaru the Poet, as recently as mid-June at Sarumino (which I created), as evidenced by the article edit history and Talk:Sarumino. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
One semi-good edit should not be used as an excuse for you to go around reverting all of my edits that you disagree with. I have made probably ten times as many good edits in this area as you, and we both no the reason for that: I am fluent in Japanese and have a serious academic qualification in this area, while you ... do not. When you disagreed with me and I was still active under one account, consensus was on my side in every single one of our debates, and the reason for that is that I always had a better case than you in consideration of Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. However, since my main account retired, you have been going around undoing several edits I made, apparently based on the assumption that I would be unable to revert you (or that I wasn't still watching those pages.) Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The above is simply untrue. If repeating untruths louder and louder is the way to get your point across here, perhaps I have something to learn from you. But sorry, that's not my MO. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Note, this is neither here nor there (well, it's actually both here and there), but I nominated tinywords for deletion. This as a kind of disclaimer, maybe, for whoever needs one. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘I'm not going to comment on the content dispute as it's not an admin matter, but it's obviously complicated by the banned user's continued harassment of Hijiri88. The harasser finds him with every new start he tries to make, precluding his ability to edit normally. That's not going away until Wikipedia finds a way to deal with it and Hijiri can return to normal editing.--Cúchullaint/c 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Cuchullain, I'm sure you're right, but can we please be careful to keep a clear distinction between the subject of this ANI (i.e. me Bagworm) and the entirely unconnected "harasser" you mention above. Sorry to be pernickity, but the entire above is so long that I'd forgive an admin or other editor for getting the characters a little confused. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just had my entire recent post deleted by DrMies here with not even an edit summary. Perhaps a word of explanation for what looks like a rather high-handed approach? If it's because I've broken some protocol, then I apologise for my ignorance. Nevertheless, it should surely not be too much to expect an explanation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an edit conflict, Bagworm, and I apologize. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, DrMies. I'm relieved to hear that, and sorry for doubting you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The TLDR version of this is that the latest incident on waka is simply a content dispute between Coldman and Bagworm, involving some edit-warring. Do note that Coldman's and his other accounts & IPs are not new to intemperate edit warring with other editors  besides those mentioned in this thread as part of the alleged conspiracy. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
By "TLDR", do you mean "Too Lazy to Do the Reading"? Because if you had even glanced at the current waka dispute you would know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with content (neither of us have even proposed changing the wording of the article), and is rooted in Bagworm trying to add spurious links back to the article, apparently solely because I removed them previously. Additionally, Bagworm's history of making problematic edits in this area, as I hinted in the final paragraph of my first post here, goes back to 2008. He has been hounding me across numerous articles since last October, and has become especially blatant since April. If you like, I could upload images of my email outbox to prove that I wrote the first draft of this ANI case two months ago, and that that draft barely mentioned the waka article (or the Romanian IP, for that matter)? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If his edits are problematic across a range of articles, then you should start a RfC/U. Running to ANI with wild conspiracy theories in which you saw fit to include myself (although I have had no contact with you since you followed me to UAA on June 11) does not help your case. As far as I can tell, you were both edit warring on waka (you using IPs). I have no idea who is right in that dispute from a content perspective. From a purely behavioral perspective, you are both at fault, you a little more because what you have done can be considered WP:SOCKING. There was an editor who was recently blocked indefinitely for doing little more than edit-warring once while logged out. You have used multiple accounts to participate in several disputes, while not being exactly strainghforward about their relationship, so I have opened a SPI on you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Full response to SNUHRN. There be whales here. Don't uncollapse unless you want a heavy, and almost entirely off-topic, reading project.
As an aside, I will address the fact that you have now accused me of "following you" to UAA twice. The fact is that you first followed me to ANI, apparently with the intention of hijacking a discussion I was involved in in order to attack me. You had never posted to ANI before. Your first nine edits on ANI looked like . Not long thereafter, I commented on you UAA post here. I may have "followed you" there, but not until you started haranguing me on ANI, and I only gave my genuine opinion of the username in question (I don't think "Koreation" is an ethnic slur, so much as a general problem on numerous Wikipedia articles related to East Asian history). I did not make a personal attack against you. You made two more comments on ANI, both personal attacks against me. Your first posting on ANI that was not to a thread I had started was nine hours later. So your assertion that you "didn't follow me here" because you were a "regular contributor to ANI" is spurious at best. And you still have not explained why your first edit on Wikipedia was to undo an edit I had made 23 hours earlier with an edit summary that accused me of "repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor". This is a very strange first edit for anyone to make, and reeks of meat-puppetry. I don't have a problem with the majority of your edits since then, so I don't intend to pursue this further, as long as you stop accusing me of "conspiracy theories", "following you", "edit-warring" and so on. And regarding your above accusation of edit-warring: I discussed the issue with Icuc2, and the latter user agreed that Simply Haiku should not be cited as long as better sources are available; Bagworm reverted my edit based on the spurious claim that what had actually happened was that Icuc2 had forced me to come to a consensus that Simply Haiku is an awesome source and should always be used as much as possible; Bagworm never offered a single piece of evidence or valid argument in favour of his addition, other than this problematic claim of Icucian authority, and in fact doubled down insisting that Icuc2 had not said that Simply Haiku should not be used when better sources are available; I pointed this out to him by saying "Icuc2 agreed that scholarly sources (read: academic books and journals, not poetry mags) were preferable, but were not readily available for haiku. He/she may or may not have been right about haiku specifically, but in this case that argument clearly doesn't apply"; instead of responding to this rationally, Bagworm repeatedly defended JoshuSasori's re-factoring of my comment. Therefore, the link should have remained out of the article until he provided some decent argument. He was edit-warring, while I was trying to get him to discuss it on the talk page. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
And I gave you my genuine impression of your editing of Wikipedia. I have edited Wikipedia as early as 2007, by the way . You enjoy your anonymity, and I enjoy mine. You're not the only person on the planet who changed his IP address. I have had no off-wiki contacts with either Bagworm, User:Dtweney nor with any other regular editor of Japanese literature articles. You probably forgot however that there was no shortage of ANI and COI/N reports surrounding these articles around May-June, which is how I found the tinywords article, where you were trying to circumvent the normal deletion procedure by a edit-warring a redirect, despite objections on the talk page. I have no horse in this race except upholding Wikipedia standards. And if you look at the tinywords AfD, you can see that Bagworm actually voted to delete that article now, even though he had reverted your redirect in past. Assuming a bit more good faith instead of jumping to conspiracy theories would go along way in improving how others perceive you. I'm glad you didn't accuse User:Joe Schmedley of being a meat puppet because of . There's is hope for you yet. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Tell me: since JoshuSasori outed me, what anonymity have I "enjoyed"? I have told you numerous times that this ANI is not about you, but you seem to keep trying to defend Bagworm's reprehensible behaviour solely as revenge for me bringing you up. I don't know what ANI and COI/N reports there were in the area of Japanese literature around May/June -- one would think I would have been involved, but I don't have any recollection of such. You may be upholding Wikipedia standards, but you have been clearly engaging in disruptive editing in this area by assuming that I am in the wrong and Bagworm is in the right, solely because I am unable to use my original account. Now that ArbCom has weighed in and made a definitive statement that I was not consciously engaged in disruptive behaviour and that this thread should be let run so Bagworm's harassment can be dealt with, can you please stop assuming bad faith on my part? I will leave Wikipedia after this is dealt with, and until that point I will only edit under this account. The sooner this matter is dealt with, the sooner you can be rid of me. Why would I want Bagworm TBANned if I plan on leaving anyway? Because he has not added anything noteworthy in at least the last year, instead engaging me in edit wars and constantly undoing my edits. My edits were all good, and even if I am leaving Wikipedia I don't want to see them undone by some disruptive user who, if I didn't have bigger fishto fry, would have been taken to ANI last year. I have never been blocked for disruptive behaviour, while Bagworm's long-time collaborator has been blocked and TBANned for the very behaviour Bagworm was helping him with. Bagworm's making one gesture of good faith on the AfD (which I saw earlier, by the way) does not mean his "contributions" in this area outweigh his constantly hounding me. Also, I should point out to you that, while ArbCom has agreed that none of my socks deserve blocks for disruptive editing or simply being socks, and that I was already forgiven for trying to protect myself via said socks, Bagworm has been actively engaging in sockpuppetry in order to hide his own COI/advertising, and to hide the fact that he was following my edits even while he was not active on Wikipedia. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess my ANI memory is better than yours . I may have been a little off with the dates (April vs May), but at least I remembered seeing something. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this is being handled privately by ArbCom , so I suggest closing this thread as redundant and a potential troll magnet (the tinywords AfD was already trolled). If Hijiri88 is serious about avoiding harassment from a certain banned editor, he should stop putting up these mega-threads where he accuses anyone who disagreed with him on something of being a meat puppet. And he can't be at the same time "retired" (thus complaining of "gravedacning") while he continues editing the same articles on topics which are so incredibly niche (e.g. waka) that they enable his instant identification. See advice at WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, he can't use "gravedacning", "harassement" and "meat puppetry" as trump cards whenever he has a content dispute with a non-banned editor in the same areas in which has previously edited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In his latest content dispute, Coldman appears disingenuous  in his [mis]interpretation of what User:Icuc2 actually said in the linked talk page ; Icuc2 did not reject using English sources, or that source (Simply Haiku) in particular. Icuc2 actually told Konjakupoet (another account of Coldman) that "Simply Haiku was also a refereed journal and rather popular in the field while it lasted. I wouldn't make any claims that all of the material in these journals is top-notch, but they do represent the more or less official views of the field, and I believe the citations were being used for that purpose (i.e. not to establish some obscure scholarly point that might need a more high-powered academic source). If you pull out these types of citations, I'm not sure there's much left at a higher level. So I think the standard you are applying here (and in some of your earlier Renga edits, is, if not unattainable, at least unrealistic. If you do have better sources, by all means put them in, but finding sources is a difficult and time consuming process, and no one here is getting paid to do it. It's not helpful to pull out functional references just because you think there ought to be a better source somewhere, particularly when content has been written in the first place based on a particular source that you are removing. In short, I'd much appreciate a reference crusade focused on adding new, better sources rather than removing sources that don't meet an unrealistic standard." Besides WP:NONENG encourages using English language sources whenever possible. This is clearly a content dispute that should be handled via WP:3O or RfC, not by playing the victim card at ANI or misrepresenting other people's words. I don't see why that citation had to be pulled when it's more easily accessible than the 1986 book (which in this case is also in English). The whole dispute looks like making a mountain from a molehill just to have a reason to drag someone to ANI. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have now made suggestions for improving the referencing on the article's talk page. The current references for that paragraph don't really verify the material as written. I suggest we continue this discussion on the article's talk in a more constructive fashion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No polemic. I was told by ArbCom that I needed to stop editing under shifting named accounts. But I was specifically told that my activities were NOT disruptive, that I had OBVIOUSLY not been using these accounts to evade the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community, and that this ANI thread would stay open to let the Wikipedia community deal with Bagworm's harassment. You appear to have had my official statement of retirement deleted, so while I'm back I might as well open an SPI on Bagworm. I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Coldman is openly admitting to attempting to out me ("I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far."). Yes, this has clearly gone too far. Admin action please! --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
With Coldman's admission of using the 182.249.241.* range on his phone, it is now clear that it was he who perpetrated a previous outing attempt on me here. The edit summary contained a real world name, and was erased after I contacted Oversight.--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Please see the SPI. I am not "attempting to out" anyone. I am pointing out that I have been aware of Bagworm engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry for a while, but have not reported it because there was a slight risk of accidentally outing him. Bagworm, however, has been actively linking my clean start accounts with an account that has been outed in the past, and failed to desist when asked to. I have admitted to using some of the information I knew about, but carefully wording it so as not to reveal anyone's real-world identity. Also, I have always, ALWAYS been very tactful about possible outing, even if other editors have been making their real-world identities perfectly obvious by openly engaging in self-promotion. Please someone deal with the sockpuppetry issue and ignore Bagworm's off-topic tirade. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
NOT an off-topic tirade. You have admitted to being 182.249.241.*, and 184.108.40.206 made a direct outing attempt on me on May 20, here. As I said above, the edit summary you used contained a real-world identity so I contacted Oversight suppressed the information. You have really gone way too far now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly how is posting something on my own page as a joke a violation of WP:OUT? Even if I accidentally posted the same thing on your page first, before immediately reverting myself and admitting the mistake? You have openly attempted to connect me with accounts that have had personal information compromised both on- and off-wiki (to the point where I can't get it retracted), and despite my e-mailing you and begging that you stop you persisted. I have not even brought that up here because this thread is about your hounding of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldman the Barbarian (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, I need to point out that I've made no shortage of good-faith mistakes while editing Wikipedia from my phone. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop skirting the issue. You made a direct attempt to out me, as Oversight's records clearly show (why else would they have removed the offending text?), and you are now doing the same with your SPI post, regardless of your disingenuous assertion to the contrary. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, Bagworm, you're digging yourself into a hole here, by claiming that something I have done in the last few hours was an "open attempt to out you". I have contacted numerous other users about this off-wiki, making it perfectly clear numerous times that I do not intend to out anyone. My direct statement of such on SPI and directly above this is proof enough that if you inadvertently out yourself during these proceedings, that was not my intention. I sincerely urge you to delete this entire subsection and ask oversight to remove it from view. I am the only other editor here and you have my permission to remove my comments with your own. Then we can never speak of this again. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, you are the one who has dug himself a hole (hence your uncharacteristic offer of compromise). Please read WP:OUTING where you will learn that an 'attempted outing' constitutes an attempt to connect an editor with a real-life identity, not necessarily their own. To mis-identify someone is just as much a transgression as to identify them accurately. You are the one doing the outing attempt now, and you are the one who did the outing attempt in May. There is nowhere for you to wiggle on this. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
How is compromise uncharacteristic? Seriously, I have witnesses to say that if you get outed, that was not my intention. Also mis-identifying oneself as a practical joke to mislead JoshuSasori (who was monitoring my userpage when that incident in May happened) cannot violate WP:OUT because I am allowed to identify myself if I so choose. Seriously, think about this: I have not posted anything, either here or on SPI, that could be considered "an open attempt to out" anyone, and have also made it perfectly clear that I do not intend to out you (although given that you made your own identity clear through your own self-promotion, I certainly could make such attempt). I do not intend to out you, so please stop this tirade before you say something stupid. Even if at this point your real-world identity became perfectly clear to readers, no one could possibly take that as having been my intention. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The facts speak for themselves. You have made two outing attempts for all to see. That's all there is be said. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Technically, expunged edits aren't there for all to see. Plus, if you think any of my recent activities here or on SPI were "outing attempts", I encourage you to contact Oversight and see what they have to say. I think it's perfectly obvious that I have not posted any personal information about you today, so your outing accusation is bogus, and the previous "outing attempt" was an obvious mistake that, when viewed in conjunction with all the other mistakes I have admitted to making while editing from my phone, is easily verifiable as such. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Your current attempt to link Bagworm with a real-world identity, however left-handedly, is a clear attempt at outing. The fact that that identity is one you know is not his real one is no defense, however much you protest. As pointed out above, WP:OUTING is just as serious an offense whether the identification is correct or incorrect. Similarly, claiming that the harmful information has been expunged from your earlier outing attempt is a laughable attempt on your part to hide behind your hands. It was expunged because it was harmful. Your current dangerous behaviour should be seen in the context of your setting up a venomous attack page targeting me yesterday. Happily that attack page was speedily deleted - see comments on your talk page by two admins here before you blanked it in shame. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Coldman, as it happens, I was the oversighter who suppressed that edit and, yes, it fell foul of WP:OUTING, because you were linking an account to a real-life identity. And such behaviour is a violation of WP:OUTING regardless of whether the identification is correct. SalvioLet's talk about it! 09:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you saw said "attack page" before it was speedied. It was not an "attack page", but rather a farewell address written at the recommendation of ArbCom in which I encouraged the community to protect my previous edits from further hounding by you -- something also recognized by Salvio Giuliani as an issue. This is why this thread will stay open until your hounding behaviour, and your hiding your admission to following me behind a sock account, is dealt with. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course I saw (and saved) the attack page you created, Coldman. It was speedied because it was an attack page, with your venom directed specifically at me and at SNUHRN as well as others you have speciously claimed to be in some sort of conspiracy against you. Your assertion that it was not an attack page is lame: obviously it would not have been speedied if it wasn't an attack page. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not gonna reply to the above ingenuous attack, except to say that if any part of my farewell address offended Bagworm (or SNUHRN) I apologize. I genuinely don't remember what I could have written that was so offensive as to warrant the page getting deleted, but I really did just mean for the Wikipedia community to continue defending my edits from Bagworm, who has now admitted to stalking my edits. This about 90 minutes after claiming that his partner, and not him, had been the one following me. Neither member of the Bagworm family had been actively editing during this period, but this confirms that it was not a coincidence that his 7th edit after returning was a direct revert of me was not an accident, and his 2nd through 6th were to an article that I didn't technically create, but... CU also confirmed that Bagworm's IP had been making edits that "lend credence to [my] allegation that [he had] been following [me]". It seems entirely possible that Bagworm used his IP as a sockpuppet to make edits that would clearly violate WP:HOUND. At the moment I can't recall a whole lot of IPs that I noticed following me, apart from one group that is based in Japan and obviously a different user, and one other group that made an off-topic personal attack against me on an AfD and later made a serious of vandal attacks against my page that directly outed me and so are no longer visible. Bagworm's confirmed meat-/sock-puppet that he claims is his partner posted on my (Konjakupoet) talk-page 30 minutes later and asked me to "clear things up", which if I recall was exactly what the vandal IP was asking me to do. Therefore, it is a confirmed fact that Bagworm has been engaging in meat-/sock-puppetry in his hounding campaign against me, and we can be fairly certain that while logged out he (or his meatpuppet) outed me directly and unambiguously, and made a malicious personal attack against me (linking to my professional profile on a freelance translation website and insulting my appearance). It appears this thread may have slipped into TLDR territory a long time ago, but under these circumstances Bagworm needs to be told that his behaviour is unacceptable, and so if this thread gets archived with no result I intend to post again with a much more concise version of events. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I apologise for this seemingly cloak and dagger approach, but I may not disclose the edits, because I'd be connecting a named account to an IP. However, I'd like to point out that a. the edits are really few and b. they don't link to your professional profile and they don't make fun of your appearance. I guess the point now is what administrative action you'd want. Would you be satisfied if Bagworm accepted a standard interaction ban or do you want something more? And, Bagworm, would you accept the terms of an interaction ban between you and Coldman? SalvioLet's talk about it! 13:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay... well, I'm not willing to accept a 2-way IBAN. I have done nothing wrong -- rather been the victim of a 10-month-long hounding campaign -- and last time that happened it came out pretty messy. Plus, even for a 1-way IBAN to be effective it would need to keep Bagworm from reverting (1) Hijiri88, (2) Konjakupoet, (3) Hitomaro742 and (4) Sarumaru the Poet. And that's just the already-connected accounts that were editing in Japanese poetry. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Coldman has grossly misrepresented the situation in his tirade above, and conflated information with wild speculation, some of which Salvio has thankfully refuted. I feel very wronged here. I have been the victim of a concerted campaign, first with Coldman's attempted outing of me in May (for which he is completely unrepentant and continues to laugh off as a "joke"), then here at ANI, and next at Coldman's attack page which was speedied. Nevertheless, if it takes a two-way interaction ban between me and Coldman, as Salvio has proposed, to restore some sort of normalcy to the situation (and to everyone's blood pressure), then yes I will reluctantly accept the admin's recommendation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Bagworm wants the Wikipedia community to take his word over mine that, despite my immediately undoing myself and apologizing, I was consciously trying to out him. I thought my SPI was consciously trying to out him too? Has he changed your mind about that? Like he changed his mind about whether his partner was the one following me and not him? Or like he is claiming he didn't know about me being stalked by another user 18 hours after his "partner" directly commented on the stalker issue? And of his first 7 edits after returning to Wikipedia at the end of a 4-month hiatus, 6 of them were either to a page in whose creation I was integral part, or to directly revert an edit I had made. Note that all three of the so-called incidents he mentions above took-place after he started his current campaign of reversions. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Kindly cease misrepresenting facts. I never claimed not to have your user page in my watchlist, so did not "change my mind" when I mentioned that it was (in my watchlist). you have shown no evidence of me or anyone connected with me commenting on your stalker issue - the diffs you provide do not support that at all. All of the rest of your harangue has already been fully dealt with above. It is now abundantly clear that you are frantically trying to justify your refusal to accept admin Salvio's good-faith effort to put this saga to bed. You don't feel his recommendation is fair to you? Well I don't feel it's quite fair to me either. But we both need to know when to shut it and accept compromise proposed by a neutral player. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
You changed your definition of "follow" mid-discussion. I said you were monitoring my edits (something no one has yet managed to disprove, with at least 2 other editors agreeing that you were), and you have been insisting throughout that this is not what you were doing. You then heavily implied that it was "your partner" who was following me, and not you. Then Salvio reported that not only "your partner"'s comment but also your logged-out edits indicated that you were following me. In all of these instances "following" clearly meant "monitoring my edits" -- which is what the whole point of this whole ANI has been the whole time. Then, you finally admitted to having been "following" me. Then just now you started insisting that "follow" as used by you means "have my user page on your watchlist", rather than "monitor my edits". Either (1) you changed your story, (2) you are deliberately using misleading language or (3) you are accidentally using misleading language despite this whole damn thread being all about you monitoring my edits. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a hypothetical question, as I know Salvio is not allowed answer, but how the devil could Bagworm's logged-out edits indicate that he "has my user page on his watchlist"? Of course even if CU cannot provide us with a concrete answer, everyone knows that the reason is that Salvio was working under the same definition of "follow" as everyone else, except (apparently) Bagworm, was. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding mention of my late partner, here's all there is to it: She made this single edit, and possibly a very small number of logged-out edits previously (as confirmed by Salvio), which I now realise (and have come fully clean about) was very likely the result of inadvertent meatpuppetry. Salvio just a short time ago drew my attention to the detail of what meatpuppetry can entail, and it is stricter than I had realised. I have already offered a cast-iron guarantee that, now that I am fully appraised, there will be no repetition. The above is being blown out of all proportion by Coldman. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not changed my definition of "follow" mid-discussion. My only understanding of 'following' a user-page, article, etc has been to add it to my watchlist. If the accepted meaning of the term is different then I'm sorry if I misled. I don't spend nearly enough time in WP to monitor every move you make. Frankly, you're not that interesting. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it was sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, or your main account, the fact still remains that you have been going around reverting my edits. Even if you don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to follow all my edits (it would take less time than I spend making said edits, which isn't much...), you have still somehow found a bunch of my edits worthy of reversion. You have more than once referred to said activities as "restoration" of what was removed "without discussion", indicating a clear awareness that it was me you were reverting. Did you not also know that it was me you were reverting with your other, similar edits? How about when you dismissed my citing a Japanese dictionary for the definition of a Japanese word, and then used your new source as an excuse to change said definition back to saying pretty much what it said before I had ever edited the article? You of course admitted that you had checked the history and knew it was my edits you were reverting. And when I pointed out to you that you were manipulating and thus misrepresenting your source you failed to respond. Please explain to us why you have been doing this, Bagworm. Coldman the Barbarian (Talk) 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
OMG, we have been thru all of this at least twice above. Are you just going to keep repeating yourself in a different order and hope that, because the thread is so long, people are going to get confused and think you're coming up with new stuff? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This thread has turned into one big battleground between these two users. And people are letting it happen?! Guys, take it somewhere more appropriate! Requesting Thread Closure and sanctions as agreed. (I assume some were agreed upon.) MM(Report findings)(Past espionage) 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Wtf? This is a thread that should be on ANI, not anywhere else, and no sanctions have even been proposed. If you're not going to attempt to read the thread, don't make that kind of comment. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Luke, before berating an editor for not reading the thread, perhaps you should read it yourself. Cos, if you did, you'd see that sanctions have been proposed, and that I, the target of this epic, have accepted them. Coldman, however, seems incapable of piping down, instead perpetuating the thread by selling the same goods over and over. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'd noted the interaction ban being mentioned, but not as actually being proposed to be actioned. It's still a pointless thing, since you'll still wander around and revert Hijiri all over the place, safe in the knowledge that they can't complain. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 20:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 11:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is why Wikipedia needs to find a way to protect Hijiri from Joshu's harrassment so he can return to normal editing. To my mind, this needs to happen before we worry about settling disputes of this nature, since until then Hijiri will always be in a position of vulnerability.--Cúchullaint/c 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘ I have a bad feeling a few people may think that Luke is skimming the edge of AGF with his attitude. Nevertheless I feel as if I should explain why I thought it was a battleground.
It's quite simple really. The thread (before my intervention) had aspired into what I saw as a battle between Hijiri and Bagworm, and last I checked doesn't a Battleground attitude generally cause problems and therefore don't we try to stop such battles from taking place? MM(Report findings)(Past espionage) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If it were simple it wouldn't take up so much space (that's not to say it should take up this much space). There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith, and an Iban of sorts is perhaps a good solution, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Luke: "Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that" Drmies: "There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith"
Jeez, I'd laugh at the absurdity of the above, if it wasn't so sad. But it kinda sums up this topsy-turvy world. I've taken some time away from Wikipedia, and come to the conclusion that life without the stress of this kind of nonsense is... better. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but the practice has become something quite different. It has developed a 'system' which can be learned and played, and which by its nature favours those who have learned its tricks. I've been editing quietly and productively for many years, sharing my knowledge and improving here and there, in no big way, and have had very little occasion to have anything to do with its 'admin' pages. Along comes an editor, new to the area I've been working on for years, removes knowledge that has long been incorporated in articles, rubs everyone up the wrong way, utterly abrasive and not interested in collaboration or consensus, but displays enormous energy and stamina, and by manipulating the system gets his way. And so it goes that you drive away editors who simply want to contribute without being combative or learning the tricks of the system. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm back on one account now, so I can defend my own edits from Bagworm, so a 1-way IBAN is more agreeable to me now than it was two days ago. Although I don't think the community would oppose a double TBAN on "online poetry magazines" and "modern western poetry based on pre-1868 Japanese poetic forms" -- both ares Drmies shares my concern over. If Bagworm is now retired, I guess it makes no difference, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see a convincing reason to TBAN Bagworm. He has contributed productively to the area of Japanese poetry for several years now. You two need to learn how to collaborate better. Based on the publicly available evidence, Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man seems to apply more to you, Hijiri88 than to Bagworm. If some check-user wants to block Bagworm for his alleged naughty IP edits (which have not been made public), he or she can obviously do that. If ArbCom wants to TBAN Bagworm for the same IP edits, they can do that. But there has been no convincing public evidence that Bagworm has done much wrong besides some edit-warring with you over trifling matters, in a topic area in which both of you have contributed productively for a long time. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If Hijiri's in a position to edit using an account, an interaction ban would be better than a topic ban. However Wikipedia is simply going to have to do better dealing with the banned harasser or we'll be right back where we started again.--Cúchullaint/c 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I submitted the article International System of Units for review as a WP:GA. This morning I received a note that User:FishGF was reviewing the artcile. FishGF's account was first created at 06:21 this morning and his/her first action was to start a Good Article review at 08:00 this morning. The reviewer's initial comments look like they come from a disruptive editor, possibly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:DeFacto.
I find it incredible that a complete newcomer can conduct such a review. This undermines the whole principal of Good Articles. I request that the actions of this editor be reversed and the the Good Article evaluation process be tightened up in respect of who can review an artcile. I will deal with this specific editor separately on WP:SPI. Martinvl (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, could also be a random newcomer trying to make a comment and mistaking the GA review venue for a general article feedback or talkpage venue? Or does the specific point he raised reflect a pattern connected to DeFacto (beyond the fact that DeFacto was obsessed with this topic area in general)? Fut.Perf.☼ 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
FishGF clearly fails WP:CIR with regard to the ability to judge the merits of an article against the GA criteria. I will help review the article; any others are welcome. We will make this a community review. Binksternet (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is my understanding/experience that asking questions of this nature at ANI will result in a block for the person asking; YMMV, but you might want to avoid queries at ANI in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Who was this comment aimed at? I couldn't find anything in the history, so I'm confuzzled. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 11:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Luke ... it was a note to Martinvl to exercise caution in inquiring or attempting clarification re socking queries or issues at ANI, as doing so has resulted in blocks to the person inquiring at ANI in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The admins and the article reviewers love each other dearly, but will not pass up the opportunity to take shots at each other. Think of this as Thanksgiving dinner at the home of a large dysfunctional family. --GRuban (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what any of the history revolving around DeFacto is, or are you here just to bitch about admins? Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Another day, another content dispute in this area of editing, and (surprise surprise) another issue that doesn't require any administrator intervention. Keep it at DRN, please. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh User:Sitush has taken effective ownership of the wikipedia article. Relevant discussion may be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh (please scroll down to the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit) . I have already taken this to Dispute Resolution (where it is still pending) but i believe this is the more appropriate forum now to deal with the issue since Sitush's misbehavior needs to stop now and Dispute Resolution is not the appropriate forum for this purpose. My allegation is this: Reckless to the explicit rules and guidelines specified in WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus, Sitush is now treating this WP:BLP as his personal facebook page. Sitush has persistently been flouting wikipedia rules and guidelines, specifically the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and also WP:Consensus. I have given many examples in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh (see the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit') where he has done this. Even the sub-section 'Batla House Encounter' whose content was disputed (which was why i had taken him to Dispute Resolution) was deleted completely together with a unilateral deletion of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section (of which the 'Batla House Encounter edit' was part) by User:Sitush while the dispute was still pending in Dispute Resolution. My contention is that Sitush seeks WP:Ownership of the article, is not interested in WP:Consensus, continues recklessly with violating the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and hence deserves to be recused from editing this article henceforth.Soham321 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Lots of people complain about Sitush because Sitush is one of the few editors willing to take the time to maintain a range of articles in accord with standard policies, while a never-ending stream of new editors arrive to make sure their particular outlook receives prominence. The report above contains lots of links to various policies and guidelines, but I can't see any diffs showing something that needs attention at this noticeboard. Please pick one item and quote a few words from it so the text can be found in the article, and/or the talk page. Briefly say why the item is a problem, and what action you recommend. Other editors are unable to take the time to explore the very long Talk:Digvijaya Singh#User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an active complaint at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard taken out by Soham321, so there is a degree of forum shopping here. However I do see that at DRN the two volunteers who have commented seem reluctant to make a judgement, suggesting that more discussion needs to happen at the article talk page; perhaps this lack of progress is frustrating Soham321. I have read through the Batla House Encounter section of the article talk (and briefly through the whole article talk page) and I don't find anything obviously objectionable by Sitush. Soham321 has on the other hand described Sitush as a liar which I would caution him/her not to repeat. I can't reach an opinion on Soham321's complaint myself because as Johnuniq points out above, there is no concise diff to demonstrate a specific problem. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 08:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that a prerequisite for Dispute Resolution is an assumption of good faith between the interlocutors. That assumption of good faith was broken when the disputed edit (which was and is still pending in Dispute Resolution) was deleted in its entirety by Sitush and not only that the entire section of which the disputed edit was a part was also unilaterally deleted by Sitush. At that point of time it became a complaint about Sitush's behavior. The context in which i had accused Sitush of misrepresenting me was when he claimed i was also in favor of deleting the entire section ('Debates, Disputes, and Controversies') which he unilaterally deleted, when in fact i had explicitly opposed the deletion of this section (and i had given my reasons) when Sitush had asked me my opinion on whether it should be deleted in its entirety. I had in a separate discussion with another editor objected to a portion of text within this section ('Debates, Disputes, and Controversies') that had been added by this editor on the ground that it had no real biographical value but i had achieved WP:Consensus with that editor when he allowed me to make some modifications to his edits which i did to make them conform to WP:NPOV. Sitush does not believe in WP:Consensus as is evident when he unilaterally deleted the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when a portion of this section had been taken up for Dispute Resolution. When the 'Batla House Encounter' edit (which was a part of the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section) was in the WP:BLP, Sitush had modified it and made the edit inappropriate/inaccurate. This happened when Sitush violated the wikipedia guideline of Balance when he did not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit (see Balance in WP:NPOV). Sitush also violating the wikipedia guideline of Impartial Tone when he inserted a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). So the first point of dispute is that the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section which Sitush has unilaterally deleted when a portion of it was in Dispute Resolution needs to be re-added to the main article. Once we agree on this point, i can start giving the relevant diffs to show the multiple occasions on which Sitush has violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in this WP:BLP.Soham321 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The diffs for the removals that Soham refers to are:
I am giving the relevant diffs myself now. Soham321 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
1 This is the page that existed just before Sitush started removing the entire content in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
 Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit in its entirety. This section was in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
 Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Batla House Encounter' edit which was in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section and which had been pending Dispute Resolution
 Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Views on RSS Section' edit which was also in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
Sitush keeps going like this till finally the entire section in 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' has been wiped out by him. My point is that Sitush violated WP:Consensus when he removed the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section because he had asked me whether i was of the opinion that this entire section needs to be removed, and i had said No. I gave my reason for this on the talk page which i now reproduce: The Controversy section should not be removed in its entirety because of two reasons. First, it contains important biographical information about Singh and second it involves issues of national interest. I refer in particular to the two edits on Singh's views on RSS and also the edit on the Thackeray family controversy.The Batla House Encounter edit should also remain in this WP:BLP because it remains a talking point in the Indian media with some continuing to claim that despite the verdict of a sessions court (meaning a court belonging to the subordinate judiciary-- implying that the verdict can be appealed in a higher court) the whole case of the prosecution remains dubious and 'full of holes'. For more on this, See for instance http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ . On the other hand, there are others who claim the encounter was genuine. For more on this, see http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/. So, since this remains a talking point in the Indian media, Singh's view on this encounter can legitimately be put on his WP:BLP In this connection i would also like to invoke WP:Ownership with the relevant extract: "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." Soham321 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Prior to his deletion of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section, Sitush had modified an existing edit ('Batla House Encounter') which in my opinion was accurate and made it biased/prejudiced/inaccurate. This is the diff:  Notice that Sitush violated the wikipedia guideline of Balance when he did not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit (see Balance in WP:NPOV). Sitush also violating the wikipedia guideline of Impartial Tone when he inserted a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV).Soham321 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a content dispute. Two DRN volunteers suggested further talk page discussion and from the outside looking in, it seems they're absolutely correct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible to have further discussion if the disputed section in the main article is unilaterally removed along with several other related sections (the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section) in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines of WP:Consensus and WP:Ownership. The whole thing becomes messy when this deletion takes place while the disputed section of the article is in Dispute Resolution. Also, a substantial amount of discussion on the talk page has taken place since the two wiki admins had asked for more discussion. The discussion on the talk page has concluded. Sitush has made it clear that he demands ownership of the article in violation of WP:Ownership and he is not interested in any consensus in violation of WP:Consensus. Soham321 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I had given four reasons on the talk page as to why i had put a POV tag on the main article which is now consisting almost entirely of whatever Sitush has written ever since he has claimed ownership of this WP:BLP in violation of WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus. Sitush has made amends with respect to one reason, but the other three points still stand. They are:
Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding the following on the basis of hearsay and speculation in one solitary article: "Singh was directed by Sonia Gandhi to ensure the selection of Ajit Jogi as the Chief Minister for the new state and this Singh did, although Jogi had been critical of his style of politics and Singh had personally preferred not to see him installed to that office. While Singh managed to convince the majority of Congress Legislator Party members to back Ajit Jogi, the absence of Vidya Charan Shukla and his supporters at the meeting raised questions about the exercise of seeking consensus as Shukla was the other main contender for the post."
Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding a POV comment of the political commentator Aditi Phadnis. This comment has no place in a WP:BLP.
Violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by giving freely speculative reasons for Digvijaya's defeat in the Madhya Pradesh elections in 2003 based on a solitary source.Soham321 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at the diffs provided by Sitush, and they generally show the removal of tidbits from an "Other controversies" section in a BLP—almost always a good thing! While again trying to find a concrete example of a claimed problem, I noticed Talk:Digvijaya Singh#Edit Battleground with what appears to be an accurate summary of the problem (there are three groups of editors: neutral Wikipedians; politician supporters; politician haters). In that section, Sitush commented "I'd say around 80% of this article is undue weight and attempts at soapboxing" (the article at that time shows that is correct). Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The edit history of the main article as well as the talk page content will show that the 'Other controversies' section was added by User:A.amitkumar and i had myself told amit that these edits of his do not seem to have biographical value in my opinion. But amit disagreed with me. However, i achieved WP:Consensus with amit by making some modifications to his edits. My specific objection here is to the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section being unilaterally removed by Sitush when one of the sections in it was being disputed and was in fact pending Dispute Resolution. By doing this Sitush is claiming ownership of the article in my opinion in violation of WP:Ownership and he is also in violation of WP:Consensus. Soham321 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I still maintain that your deletion of the entire section of 'Batla House Encounter' together with your deletion of the related sections like 'Thackeray Family Controversy' and 'Views on RSS' i.e. all content within the section 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' at a time when the 'Batla House Encounter' edit was pending Dispute Resolution was violative of WP:Consensus and also WP:Ownership. As of now, the entire WP:BLP of the main article under consideration consists almost entirely of words written by you. I find this unacceptable and violative of WP:Ownership. Also, your prevarication when you falsely claimed on the talk page that I also wanted the removal of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section on the talk page did nothing to enhance your credibility. Soham321 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC) And oh, if you would really have been open to suggestions you would not have unilaterally deleted the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when a portion of it was being disputed in the Dispute Resolution page. Soham321 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Soham, you can huff, puff and maintain to your heart's content but even this last response of yours clearly demonstrates a misunderstanding of policy etc. Articles regularly have as few as one major contributor without being owned by that person; consensus is based on policy, not "votes"; BLP dictates that contentious material is removed if/until the issue is resolved; DRN is a voluntary process, although you have tended to see it as some sort of court of Wikipedia with your frequent premature desire to run there (examples include 1, 2, 3). - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you agree that as of now the entire text in the main article under consideration consists of words written almost entirely by you? Soham321 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but so what? It is developing quite well, I think, but needs more work. That, however, is a content issue rather than a behavioural one. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
@Soham321: The above still does not show a problem. Yes, Sitush removed a section, as noted in my last comment. But (briefly) what is wrong with that? Presumably you think some of the text should be retained—(briefly) what text and why? Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I object to the removal of the following three edits in particular by Sitush:
My reason is as follows: The 'Views on RSS' and 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edits involve issues of national interest. These sections would be present in any biography of Singh. The 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit is significant because it involves Singh's attack on the regionalism and regional chauvinism articulated by a section of politicians in Maharashtra and the 'Views on RSS' edit is important because it involves Singh's criticism of the Hindu extremist group, the RSS, which has increasingly become more powerful in the political sphere and whose endorsed representative Narendra Modi is tipped to be the Prime Ministerial candidate of the main opposition in India in the next general elections in 2014. The 'Batla House Encounter' edit should also remain because it remains a talking point in the Indian media. In the latest issue of Tehelka magazine there are two articles containing two different views on this encounter. ( http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ and http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/ ). Soham321 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
DELETE to IMPROVE should happen only when no reliable sources are available. Editors cannot claim removal of controversial content due to content dispute (especially for content which is validly sourced). If you feel this is trivia then this is not the right way to handle trivia. Statements such as "this doesn't look good", or "this should not be here without reason" are certain traits that show ownership by the editor which is not correct. Also showing an editors past good behavior doesn't permit them to do things wrong now or prove what an editor does is correct(there is no dearth of first time offenders in WP), so lets keep that argument out of this topic. A m i t 웃 17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
DELETE to IMPROVE should happen only when no reliable sources are available - do you have a policy to support this statement? It is not uncommon to take such steps, especially in BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE talks about trying to correct/fix the problems before you revert and the policy about WP:BLPREMOVE talks about removing contentious content only for un-sourced or poorly sourced content. The controversy section was added to the BLP by me because of WP:WELLKNOWN to try to summarize the large sections of controversy into a single section and use only 1-2 lines per controversial statement the leader might have made instead of using such large sections for each controversial statements. Where is the policy that states sourced content should be removed for improvement, a trend or habit is not a policy either? A m i t 웃 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a policy for removal; I queried your statement, which read like it was based on policy. There has been lengthy discussion about the controversy stuff and in the absence of any consensus plus the burden of BLP and not wanting to be a random list of random allegations, I boldly took the lot out. As noted in a diff above, I'm not averse to considering proposals but none were forthcoming at the time and, indeed, Soham had indicated an unwillingness to provide any. I do wish that people could try not to write articles in list form and I do wish that they considered the relative importance of statements made in those lists etc ... but I've been around India-related articles for long enough now that I really should know that good writing is not usually going to happen. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I lost interest in interacting with Sitush after he started misrepresenting my position by making false statements. For instance, Sitush claimed that i was in favor of removing the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when in fact i had opposed such a move. That was also when i had explained to him why the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section should not be removed as he was in favor of doing. For the diff, see here. Soham321 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘I looked at the diffs of text removal by Sitush and I found that these were improvements to the article, removing text with problems such as non-neutral tone, and synthesis of sources to form a novel conclusion. I have not looked at the article's talk page or at the DRN discussion. As described by Johnuniq, Sitush is to be praised for interposing himself between Wikipedia's policies and politicized or activist editors. This position subjects him to a near-continuous stream of and criticism and even invective. If Wikipedia is to maintain its neutrality, Sitush should be supported as much as possible by the community. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If your only contribution to this discussion is to sing praises of Sitush, then it is not going to help anything here. I am leaving this topic even though the content under discussion was created by me. I have no issues with Sitush, and any consensus brought here or on DRN is fine by me. But try to keep the discussion pointed to the content and not the user. A m i t 웃 18:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Sitush's three edits given as problem edits are well within policy, there is no reason to sanction him for them. Wikipedia biographies shouldn't be used to provide a platform for the "views" of its subjects. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
None of those three edits can be said to be examples of WP:Soap. Soham321 (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My view is that a biographical article shouldn't be full of statements made by a person, shouldn't be what person X has to say about various issues, perhaps Digvijaya's impressions on Batala house case could be used in the article on Batala house. I don't see Sitush's edits, the three main ones as sanctionable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I must say i am impressed by the level of interest you are taking in this case. On another note, could you confirm whether you have made a single edit to date in the main article under consideration? Soham321 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 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.
Will someone please consider hatting the discussion here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Persistant disruptive edits on articles labeled "LGBT People from Italy"
Isn't it possible to block that person ? Frimoussou (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The pages in question are currently semi-protected, but I think a rangeblock might be a good idea in this situation. I've never done one before, but it looks like 220.127.116.11/20, 18.104.22.168/20, and 22.214.171.124/14 would be the ranges, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
@Mark Arsten: I get 126.96.36.199/20, but that does not include 188.8.131.52. If that one is included it puts us into a range that is bigger than we are allowed to block. That IP could be blocked individually. The range 09.52.145.74/14 - I got the same result, but this tool shows someo