Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Clavdia chauchat[edit]

User wound up being given a 24hr block for repeated use of phraseology after being asked/told/warned it was disruptive. User then flounced. Nothing more to see or do here; if there are intristic project problems that's something to discuss at the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 5 February 2014 (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.

Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately this user is becoming increasingly difficult to work with; her civility problems have already been raised at ANI back in December 2013, yet she continues to smear an entire WikiProject (yes, of which I am a member) as "circle jerks" - complete with a link to the article on the sexual practice, just to make sure her meaning is crystal clear, latest diff here. Interesting to note her problematic editing/edit warring was brought here just last week. As she seems unable to engage in civilized discussion, without restoring to repeated childish insults, I seek wider input here. GiantSnowman 19:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • That's unacceptable. I have warned and will block for any repetition. --John (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is pure WP:ADMINSHOPing. No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here. This noticeboard doesn't exist for you to keep telling tales, over and over again, in the hope that a (fellow) weak or incompetent admin will do what you want and hand out a block. Much worse has been flung in my direction but my eyes remain dry and I'm not running here every five minutes, wasting peoples' time. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the issue of your language and civility problems has been raised once before here; if you think it is "three or four" then that obviously indicates we have a larger problem than I first thought. GiantSnowman 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, suffice to say all the complaints were completely ignored. That suggests that not everyone shares WP:FOOTBALL's outrage (which you regularly express on their behalf). Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because only members of that WikiProject have concerns about your behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review the last comment by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) at WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gorman and her previous comment, where she accuses me of "ethnic cleansing". I am really offended by her behaviour and do not think she's being civil one bit towards me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review Fenix down (talk · contribs)'s comment at the same discussion. He accuses me of being "arse about tit", which has wounded my inner child. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Comment from uninvolved editor): "A (fellow) weak or incompetent admin..."? Clavdia, I can't even begin to tell you how many things are wrong with that statement... Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Claudia's been a problem from the start, and is clearly going to continue to be so. I'd propose a topic ban from anything to do with WikiProject Football, because I've struggled to find anything this user has provided that is productive in this area. I particularly like how "No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here" is perceived to be a good thing to Clavdia; what would actually be a good thing is to never having been brought here at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support a topic ban for all these reasons. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic ban. There are obvious civility issues at play here, but her first comment in the AfD has enough substance to it that I would view it as a productive contribution. Civility and personal attacks are enforceable issues on their own, but aren't justification for a topic ban. If you'd like to topic ban her, please provide diffs that go beyond an AfD with an uncivil comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban While Claudia's language has certainly left something to be desired, we should be slow to shut down discussions of sexism and other forms of systemic bias. The scope of the topic ban is also quite unclear - every article on soccer is within the scope of the WikiProject, so is that supposed to mean that she's topic banned from all of them? Or is it just supposed to mean that she's topic banned from talking about or interacting with the WikiProject? Neljack (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All of them, yes, that's the point of the topic ban. I have no issue with someone bringing up issues with sexism, but Clavdia is simply here to attack anyone who won't let her get her way, and has contributed absolutely nothing positive to the debates she has been involved in recently. She provides absolutely no evidence for her claims, makes claims that are absolutely and obviously false (like the claim of there being no female members of the WikiProject, for example; she lists herself as being part of a taskforce that is run by the very WikiProject that she constantly attacks). This is why she needs to be removed from the subject area, as she is purely and simply a disruptive editor, who gives absolutely nothing of value to the debates she involves herself in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone can be bothered to plough through the talk page at Australia national football team, they'll find [1] and [2] which, in terms of "uncivility", are several categories worse than anything I find myself here for. Neljack is right, these constant WP:LAME attempts to get me blocked are more about putting a chilling effect on legitimate criticism. I've already addressed the circle jerk metaphor here. Do I think WP:FOOTY's 'activists' literally meet round at GiantSnowman's house for a game of soggy biscuit? No. Yuck. Do I share the widely-held suspicion that there is a disturbing lack of diversity at that project, and serious ongoing problems with sexism and ethnocentrism/xenophobia: yes. These activists (ie the ones who spend more time on political stuff like this than creating or improving articles) have created a wikiproject in their own image - pale, male and stale. If Wikipedia was a house then WP:FOOTY would be a teenaged boy's bedroom which smells of farts and gets a wide berth from everyone else. I know that rather than confront these issues, the forumshopping will continue and I'll find myself here every couple of weeks until an obliging admin gives them what they want. But that doesn't mean I'll be cowed from further productive contribtions in the meantime. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A topic ban is not needed - and would prevent her from doing 99% of her solid editing work anyway, seeing as her taskforce falls under the remit of WP:FOOTBALL (whether she likes it or not) - and neither is a block (yet). What is needed is for CC to recognise that her language/behaviour is not welcome or useful and is becoming an incresing problem; the same goes for her combative, almost WP:BATTLEGROUND stance both here, at her talk page, and and at the AFD. GiantSnowman 13:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So you brought me here again to have me admonished and to hope I'll 'recant'? I'm not sure that's really what this noticeboard is for. Still, the credulous John (interests: Scottish football) could hardly get his yellow card out quickly enough so I suppose it's mission complete. I remain surprised that a "childish insult" could arouse such petulant indignation. Perhaps, deep down, some members of that project recognise the description of themselves? Perhaps they are pretending to be offended in order to shut down valid criticism? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I won't block you for insulting me. However, I am noting that you have responded to complaints about your insulting editors by throwing more insults around. Since you have raised doubts about my competence and impartiality, I shall be sure to bring any block I need to make here for review after I make it. I still very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you raised doubts about competence and impartiality with your own insulting and high-handed input. You've completely ignored evidence of editors directly telling me to "fuck off" and instead pretended that my "regrettable pattern of combativeness" took place in a vacuum. Your first threat to block me over what you thought was a "nasty edit" (as nasty as telling a fellow editor to fuck off?) was hasty. Your repeated threats increasingly oppressive and disproportionate. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs Highlighting Clavdia's Behaviour[edit]

  • One - whilst perfectly within her rights to remove what she likes from her talk page, the edit summary openly acknowledges that she has offended editors on more than one occasion.
  • Two - the frankly quite strange accusation of ethnic cleansing, essentially accusing editors of wanting to delete articles purely on the subject's nationality.
  • Three - unfounded and unsupported accusations of disengenuous editing by others
  • Four - further unfounded accusations of bias against an apparent cabal of editors at WP:FOOTY whom she doesn't name.
  • Five - additional aggressive comments about "jerking" from a previous ANI about her edits.
  • Six - more unfounded accusations of bias and how there is an always unnamed group of editrs against her
  • Seven - again well within her rights to remove what she likes from her talk page, but refusal to acknowledge that her accusations and language are offending editors. Instead brands a perfectly civil message from Giant Snowman as "creepy"
  • Eight - additional claims of a "circle jerk" within WP:FOOTY
  • Nine - more ad hominem attacks against editors she perceivess as being against her views but never named.
  • Ten - unfounded claims of sexism at WP:FOOTY
  • Eleven - aggressive refusal to get involved in any suggestion that her conduct might not really be what is deisred
  • Twelve - refusal to get involved in an AfD that wasn't going the way she wanted other than to call the nomination "inane" and claim widespread coverage without making any effort to support her claims
  • Thirteen - Aggressively accusing another editor of being "lazy, sloppy [and] pathetic" and to "go back to editor school"
  • Fourteen - Accusing GS of no being bothered to source things
  • Fifteen - Further aggressive ad hominem attacks on GS accusing him of "wrecking" an article
  • Sixteen - Unsupported accusations of WP:OWN

Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that these are not exactly the worst example of aggressive and offensive behaviour that WP has ever seen, but it only covers the last four months and is indicative of an editor who seems to have significant issues when things do not go her way. I would be infavour of a topic ban, but feel that this might be counterproductive. Clavdia is a good editor who is heavily involved in women's football articles which are neglected in general by WP.

However, that is the point, they are neglected, not undesired. There is no cabal trying to run the project specifically counter to her views, it is merely that in a number of instances her opinion is not in line with consensus. When things don't go her way, she regularly resorts to unfounded accusations against admins, editors and the project in general. Is it possible to have a topic ban on just for talk pages and AfD for a while, as this is where the issues lie, not with her general editing? I would support this but acknowledge it would not give her an avenue to validly challenge any issues other than reverting.

Overall, I think Clavdia needs most importantly to calm down, acknowledge that there have been regular instances in the last four months or so when things have not gone her way, but that the way to win battles is through consensus, not through mud slinging, claiming bias, chaivanism and "circle jerking" (which is incredibly immature and cannot possibly help support anything). If there is no form of topic ban gneral or just on discussion pages, then a final warning at least would seem appropriate, this is not the first ANI on this editor. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If these are the best you could WP:cherrypick I think it's becoming desperate and a bit embarrassing. I won't go through them all but I take issue with the recurrent nonsense about "unsupported and unfounded". In Twelve, for example, I did provide evidence of coverage, which of course was ignored. 13 through 16, Giant Snowman unilaterally drove a bus through the article, removing swathes of easily-referenced and non contentious material without lifting a finger to try and reference any of it. When I queried this he admitted that he "didn't have time" then pompously informed me that I don't understand the relevant policy or guidelines! I invite anyone to read the full discussion, rather than the one side presented here, and arrive at their own judgment. The circle jerk thing and the problems with exclusively-male WP:FOOTY are dealt with above. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find in 12 you didn't provide a single link to a source indicating GNG, you just claimed there was coverage. This is the problem, when things don't go your way you just start spouting generalisations and invective without ever backing them up (like in your post above where diffs are provided and you then just call them desparate and embarrassing and only discuss a ocuple that you feel you can challenge). If there was such coverage, why did you not simply provide some links? Kind of suggests things aren't nonsense. In the other example, GS is merely removing completely unsourced elements, the history exists and elements can be added back if and when sources are found. There was no removal of any sourced information except in one instance where the source was a Wordpress blog and it is fair to call the elements removed unreffed OR. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that's wrong - in 12 I added several WP:RSs to the article. My content dispute with Giant Snowman (more than four months ago btw), if it's supposed to evidence WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, is very tepid and applies equally to both participants — notwithstanding your selective quoting. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You never addressed WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E there. Or even came close to, instead making the same pointless personal attacks against anyone who holds a different viewpoint to you (and this isn't even one of your regular targets of abuse). Nor do your claims of "cherry picking" make any sense here; it's a list of your incivility, so of course it will only contain links to you being incivil. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • CC, if you accuse these editors of cherry picking in our 'dispute', which you say was 2 sided, please feel free to provide diffs of my apparent poor behaviour, in the spirit of BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be making Claudia's point, giving the sexist overtones of telling women to calm down. Neljack (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@Neljack: - why are you bringing gender into this? Is one user only allowed to suggest another calm down if they are of the same gender? You might wish to review your previous comment and consider how it could appear offensive to people. You may also wish to question the inherent assumptions you have made about other editors' genders in making that comment. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Fenix down for your diligence in collecting these diffs. As you say, they are not the worst but they do show a pattern of combativeness which is regrettable. The circle jerk thing is a line in the sand and I will block over that if it recurs. Two serious questions; apart from the annoyance that User:Clavdia chauchat exhibits against the football project, are there other instances of personal attacks from her? Secondly, is there any justification for her charges of sexism and racism in our coverage of footballers? We do have a duty to counter systemic bias on our project. If the answer to question 2 is "yes" or "maybe", it would not justify Clavdia's behaviour but it could explain it and offer a different avenue to fix the problem. Thoughts? --John (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The answer to question 2 is no. We have, in addition to GNG, a clear guideline that requires a player to play for a club in a fully-professional league for them to have an article. The reason this was developed (over a decade ago) was because it was thought to be the best measure of notability, as professional status is inherently linked to the popularity of the sport, which itself links directly to notability. In some countries (for men's football) and most countries (for women's football) the domestic league is not popular enough to support professional clubs. If they are unable to draw sufficient crowds to support professionalism, this suggests their notability is also questionable.
    • No doubt my sincerity will be called into question because I am English and male, but my main interest in football is in the semi-professional leagues. The club I support plays at the eighth level of English football, and I am fully aware of the fact that the players I watch are in no way notable (except for the odd one or two who are winding down from a professional career). However, the club has a better average attendance than more than half the clubs in the Estonian top division. How could players in that league be considered notable when so few people are actually interested in what they are doing? Number 57 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
From my experience there does seem to be such sexism (I can't comment on racism). It may well be unconscious, but it is nonetheless troubling. The resistance to incorporating the word "men" in articles about men's national teams is a good example. There is also an attempt to inflexibly apply a notability guideline that is not suited to female players without giving any consideration to issues of systemic bias. There really should be a separate notability guideline for female players, and possibly separate WikiProjects for men's and women's association football. That might reduce the conflict. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is the guideline unsuitable for women footballers? By and large, women's football is far less popular as a spectator sport - the average attendance in the Women's Super League in England last year was under 600, roughly equivalent to the sixth level of men's football (and the second level of semi-professional football) - which means the players themselves are less notable. Those that play international football do have articles, because playing for your country is obviously going to make someone notable, but is someone who plays part-time for Birmingham City and has never played international football notable? If they are, then they'll pass the GNG, but I can't see how a separate guideline could be applied. The difference in status/popularity may be down to sexism in the outside world, but it's not Wikipedia's job to put this right - we are not a activist organisation. And as with semi-pro men's football, I also watch women's football, even travelling to Germany to watch the last women's world cup. However, but as with semi-professional men's football, I am aware that the players I watch are not of the same notability level as professional counterparts. Number 57 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@John: - I only went back over the last four months and those were the examples I could find. I don't want to turn this into a witch hunt so I would say I am not aware of any other instances recently, but overall her responses to this ANI highlight the issue: namely a complete inability to acknowledge offence caused and, regardless of the validity of her claims, that at best she is also creating friction and issues which are not helping her case.
I disagree with @Neljack: about the notion of inflexibility on notability guidelines. WP:NFOOTY is the current consensus agreement on a first step to establishing GNG. Essentially it states that a player must have played in a FULLY professional league or played senior international football to be notable. There are regretably fewer fully professional female leagues, but I am unaware of any instance where a player of either gender has been deleted where they pass this criteria except on occasion where a player only just passed through 1 FPL appearance in their whole career.
This is not the only criterion however, GNG is always considered as well. Here the issue revolves around WP:ROUTINE and it is generally accepted consensus at WP:FOOTY that match reports which state merely that an individual played / scored are routine sports journalism and their quantity is irrelevant to estabhlishing GNG. What is needed is in depth articles on the player themselves (i.e. interviews, etc.) Again, I am unaware of instances where such sources have been applied to an article which has been deleted through AfD. Clavdia has created a large number of articles on female footballers which remain because they not only pass NFOOTY but also GNG. I think the point here is that worldwide, the womens game gets less coverage and there are fewer fully professional leagues. It is a function of the current state of the women's game that it is more difficult for a player not in an FPL or an international to pass GNG.
This does not mean that the means by which NFOOTY is viewed cannot be changed. However, Clavdia has made no attempt to put together a reasoned argument and present it at WT:FOOTY. I would suggest if she genuinely feels there are instances of bias / sexism then she should put together a user page that shows this clearly and present it to WP:FOOTY. If this does not get a satisfactory response, then she can always take it further to here or another forum. That would be more preferable than petty name calling and obstructive behaviour. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
1) No 2)Yes Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's customary to provide evidence for your opinion here. Could you please do so if you expect to be taken seriously? --John (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You're asking me to provide evidence that I haven't made any personal attacks. How do you suppose I do this? Could you provide evidence that you haven't made any? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My behaviour is not under review here, yours is. Have you edited productively and harmoniously in any other areas? Can you provide evidence to support your opinion that sexism and racism are a problem in our coverage of footballers? --John (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you look at Talk:Australia national association football team for your evidence. You're already WP:INVOLVED there, aren't you? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think there have been any other issues other than those mentioned in the diffs above, unless of course we count the general attitude being shown in this discussion. I would also hardly call John involved on that page as he has posted once to enquire what on earth is going on. Regards the many long-winded arguements on the Oz National football team talk page, they all seem to revolve around WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
It is clear from the discussion that on the one side are two editors whose use names appear to be female, and on the other side several other editors opposing whose user names, with the exception of Lukeno94, do not allow conclusions as to gender to be drawn. Clavdia, has however, taken it upon herself to assume that because she is female and people are arguing against her in a discussion surrounding gender issues within an article title that they must therefore be male. This is not a conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion (and I must admit I am not aware of the gender of any of the users involved where it is not obvious, despite having regular interation on football pages).
At no point does anyone make any indication that they favour an outcome on grounds that could be considered sexist, both in terms of the arguments that have been put forward and also because their gender is in the main unidentifiable. This discussion is symptomatic of my impression of Clavdia's attitude in general in the last few months when things don't go her way, namely she claims that everyone against her takes that position because of her gender, or some other perceived bias such as here despite being unwilling / unable to provide any concrete evidence that that is the case. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the two sides there were the problematic WP:FOOTY faction versus everyone else, who doubtless were a cross section of healthy, normal society including men. The hostility started from WP:FOOTY with childish feet stamping, accompanied by accusations of "campaigning" and POV pushing. It's not campaigning, we just don't accept this small project pissing on our feet and telling us it's raining: ie. "It's not our bias, we're just reflecting inherent bias" etc. As an encyclopedia we have to be better than that. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Clavdia, can you provide a diff that illustrates "It's not our bias, we're just reflecting inherent bias", or is this just your interpretation of what you think others are doing? --John (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Granted you didn't start it but you behave just as badly in that thread, others' behaviour is no excuse for your own. It's one of the reasons that no consensus has been reached in any of the cdebates recently on that talk page, because both sides just descend into petty comments. Fenix down (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet I'm the one brought here to be gently upbraided? After some fairly enthusiastic WP:WIKISTALKING you've dredged up your, er, evidence of low-level naughtiness. You've found a friendly involved admin to do the ticking off. Why don't we just get back to the correct forum for these discussions? Further sanctimonious waffle is doing nothing to disprove WP:FOOTY's reputation as a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event". Also can refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review my block of Clavdia chauchat[edit]

SUPPORTED, EXPIRED
NE Ent 10:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I indicated above, I wish to seek a review of my block of Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I warned her here not to compare those she disagreed with to those who indulge in an obscure sexual practice, but she has gone ahead and repeated the behaviour I asked her not to. As she has indicated above that she has doubts about my competency as an admin, I think it only proper to seek other input. Let it be known that I have every sympathy with the position that there is sexism in our coverage of football, and if I see evidence of such I will do my utmost to ensure it is addressed. We will nevertheless not solve alleged sexist behaviour by casting obscene aspersions on others. If Clavdia can indicate she has learned from what has happened and undertake not to repeat the behaviour, I will of course have no objection to the block being shortened or remitted. At present it is for 24 hours. --John (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - You gave fair warning. Her constant hostile battleground behaviour and gross references to circle jerking are not welcome. JMHamo (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Good block Behavior is 100% inappropriate. I'd support an indef if it continues. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, I've only recently become aware of this ANI discussion, but the overt and offensive misandristic behaviour is entirely worthy of a block, particularly in light of the discussions here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious support - She was warned, she knew exactly what she was doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous block "Circle jerk" is a quite commonly-used term for a group of people who agree with each other in a somewhat repetitive or self-congratulatory manner. I've never regarded it as particularly offensive. I hardly think that anyone is actually going to take it as an imputation regarding the sexual practices of members of WP:FOOTY. The suggestion of misandry is utterly unsupported and absurd. Neljack (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Neljack misses the point entirely, it is not about certain words being used or not, it is about civility. The issue is around a combative editor who has made quite serious claims around sexism / bias when discussions on talk pages don't go her way repeatedly in the last few months without providing even a shred of support for these, and whilst others in certain circumstances on the Australia football team talk page also appear to have been potentially offensive towards her, she has responded in kind or in other documented instances above kicked off hostilities. She has continualy refused to acknowledge that she could even be slightly in the wrong regarding civility and in this ANI has essentially indicated that she intends to go on behaving in an incivil manner depite a number of editors requesting formally that she review her behaviour. Her like-for-like attitude is unacceptable, though her block should not be taken to mean she is the only one in the wrong in some instances. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
She was blocked for using this term, not for a general pattern of incivility or for making claims about sexism. And I would dispute that statement that she hasn't provided evidence for claims of sexism or bias - she's referred to the discussion on the appropriate title for the article on the Australian men's soccer team, where sexist assumptions - whether conscious or unconscious - seem to me to be common. You may not think this evidence is sufficient to support her claims, but that is a different matter - she is not required to provide evidence that will convince you. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • She was explicitly warned about using this exact term, and still went ahead and used it. How can you claim the block is ridiculous based on that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If the warning is not justified then neither is the block. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that a warning about using a term that was clearly offensive to multiple people wasn't justified? Seriously? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • May be moot – I hope I'm mistaken, but it looks like Clavdia didn't appreciate your block, John. She has had her userpage deleted, along with six or seven nine highly developed articles she was creating in her sandboxes. Did you know she had created 324 new articles? You may not realize, John, how offensive that first block can be to an editor with a clean block log. To repeat, I hope I'm mistaken about her intentions, but if I'm correct, your block has damaged the project. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it won't have done, as in recent times, she's been causing more harm than good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If John can overlook the behaviour of Mr. Civility (MF/EC), he can overlook Clavdia's behaviour too. Why didn't he? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever John did in a different case is entirely irrelevant here. He warned Clavdia about using this exact term, and she went ahead regardless. She knew exactly what she was doing, and got the block she'd been warned about. Claiming this block was offensive is baffling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Consistency in an admin is never irrelevant. (And, maybe you'll understand better how offensive a first block can be when you earn your first block.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Lukeno94, to reiterate 71.178.50.222's point, being blocked can be a slap in the face, especially if you're trying to eventually earn adminship. A lot of RfAs have been opposed because an editor was blocked, even if just once. And for those who don't want to be an admin, other editors will gloat that they have clean block logs versus your blemished log. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Providing you can edit for a year without getting another block then most RFA !voters will regard most old blocks as lessons learned, especially if you or your nominator can say how your behaviour has subsequently changed. For a block to derail an RFA it needs to be recent or you need to give the impression that you would react the same way today. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I remember that a previously banned editor was able to gain adminship (I don't know who exactly). But that is off-topic. Some editors, who have been blocked only once, see being blocked as if they had an arrest on their previously clean police record. It's just not seen as good to be blocked, as it sometimes causes the editor to lose some dignity (for example, the case of Trongphu). Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A block can be a slap in the face, if it wasn't justified. There can be no question that this block was justified; they were warned on multiple occasions. Hypothetical RfAs are neither here nor there. And some editors have had multiple blocks that get totally disregarded anyway, if they are viewed to have improved their behaviour (I'm pretty sure I've seen successful RfAs on people who started out as petty vandals, just as an example). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Good block - regardless of how good an editor is, language/attitude like that is not welcome. She has been given fair chance long before John's warning. GiantSnowman 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well the tragic irony has played out. The poor footy fans all being hugely offended by the term circle jerk, to the point that they have to throw the foul mouthed woman out of their bar, and then gather together to say how necessary it was. FMMonty (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The irony is an editor being "hugely offended" by a short block to prevent further disruption, and being so offended to the point that they're unable to edit Wikipedia unless they can do it their way. But when their way of editing involves slinging around insults, that's a problem that needs to be addressed (and was). An editor being blocked for behavior, after being warned that the behavior will lead to a block, is hardly problematic. The block was fine, that someone might not like being blocked (who would?) is not a consideration for preventing disruption to Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh the block was exactly within the letter of the rules. FMMonty (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a shame when regular content creators can't conduct themselves within the spirit of friendly collaborative editing. This very short block was entirely with in the terms of prevention and should serve as a reminder that such behaviour while often escaping admonition, will not be tolerated when it becomes a persistent pattern - especially after warnings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The "circle jerk" thing is relatively innocuous taken by itself. It's a relatively common expression, at least in the US, with a sort-of-similar meaning to "wankathon", inspired by a sexual image but not intended to be taken literally. As the article explains: [i]n the metaphorical sense, the term is used to refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people, usually in reference to a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event".[1] Clavdia chauchat was clearly using the phrase in this metaphorical sense. So blocking over it seems excessive to me. I didn't look at the other stuff, which may or may not have justified a block. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2014 (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.

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.

Til Eulenspiegel[edit]

Considering all the behavior outlined here, I've blocked Til Eulenspiegel for one week and warned him that discretionary sanctions via the Pseudoscience Arbitration case may apply to further disruption. This behavior cannot be tacitly condoned by allowing it to continue. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2014 (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.

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs), reverts the Holy anointing oil article to a recent unsourced version, first made here> He also calls a legitimate and neutral post at a WikiProject, nl. Wikipedia_talk:JUDAISM#Cannabis_in_the_Tanakh "canvassing". En passant he made 4 reverts.[3], [4], [5] and [6]. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are reporting me for reverting once on the article, then reinstating my comment that you wrongly removed from the talkpage four times. You did not present this very honestly. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It was removed legitimately. Such inflammatory posts like yours with unfair headers are regularly removed or edited. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it was removed illegitimately. It has bearing on the current pov dispute over whether Sula Benet is reliable for purpose of establishing that the school of thought exists regarding cannabis being used in the Holy anointing oil. They are my comments and not for anyone else to censor. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Debresser, I'm not sure what exactly you're doing, but no we do not routinely remove posts with "unfair" headers. We do remove inflammatory posts, but that's not that we have here. What you removed[7] is the editor disputing how you've treated the sources and then complained about a call for revert warriors on WP:JUDAISM. You may be correct about the content and sources, but your talk page reverts are unjustified.--v/r - TP 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As a 5 year+ editor I can not easily go and find the diffs, but I remember several cases where my headers were edited and my talkpage posts removed for less outrageous claims than the utterly unjustified claim of canvassing in this case.
In addition, what did Til think to achieve with that post, and with making it a separate section? I see nothing constructive there.
I think Til temporarily was not thinking clearly (read: along the Wikipedia policies and guidelines) in regards to this article: reverting to an unsourced recent edit containing such a strong claim as cannabis usage in Judeo-Christian traditions?! That would have to be impeccably sourced! Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with you about such an edit to the article needing very high quality sources. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that rebutting the talk page comment would have been better than removing it, particularly more than once. But I will say no more and leave others to weigh in. DES (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I just reviewed the talk page history, and the post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. In my view, the post was not canvassing, and I would also tend to agree with Debresser on the content issue (which isn't relevant to this page of course). However, i don't see that it was legitimate to remove Til Eulenspiegel's talk page comment, much less to edit war over it. Trouts all round. DES (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • One name which hasn't been mentioned so far concerning the holy anointing oil spat is Ploxhoi (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a campaign to push the cannabis theories of Sula Benet, who wrote the paper that everyone seems to refer to on the matter. there's been a fair amount of revert brinkmanship in the article over a tag and a very short phrase when really the whole thing suffers from a huge degree of WP:UNDUE on this plainly fringe theory as well as a lot of forking from anointing and chrism and probably several other articles as well. Til is not at all helping with his typical cheerleading on the talk page against us Enforcers of Orthodoxy Who Want to Suppress Dissenters. There has been a lot of recruitment on this issue not so much because we're looking for allies, but because of the paucity of scholarly sources which even care. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Why a you claiming I am pushing cannabis theories of Sula Benet? I am trying to keep the article neutral as there are many sources that have shown cannabis is the ingredient and calamus is not. There has been an edit war going on where calamus is being replaced by cannabis and back and forth. I have been trying to keep both cannabis and calamus listed. There are those claiming fringe or are biased and removing cannabis, and there those removing calamus for various reasons. For over a decade I have researched religion and cultures in the middle-east. Most of my research focused on Zoroastrianism and the relation to Christianity. There is clearly an influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and the Torah. Those that have done any research on Zoroastrianism will know they used cannabis for medical and spiritual uses. I have posted some of the sources in the talk page, but some wish to ignore the sources due to not being Jewish origin and claim fringe. I do not believe Til Eulenspiegel has done anything wrong. Additionally I do believe both ingredients should be listed to keep the page neutral. Ploxhoi (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm claiming that you're pushing them because, as far as we can tell, this claim traces back to that single source. We have talked at length about the sourcing, and I see that the same problems of plant identification exist in the Zoroastrian case (see Botanical identity of soma–haoma for detailed discussion). Anyway, the further point is that Ploxhoi has a history of this kind of idiosyncratic advocacy. For example I found this older struggle in which he insisted that the number of the beast was supposed to represent the bismillah. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And we are now moving into "out of line territory" in this edit to the talk page in which Til rambles on with allegations (presumably directed at some of us skeptics) that religious beliefs motivate objection to this theory. This is the kind of behavior from him that clogs discussion every time (a) he finds an ally and (b) we (and I say "we" because common interests have all of us washing up at the same articles) hold the line against some fringe position that someone else is dedicated to promoting. It's not religion that makes me doubt this theory; it's that I've never heard it before in an area which I have some knowledge of, and I find it's the pet theory of some outsider group tracing back to one person's dubious "research". And Til shouldn't be engaging in these ad hominems, and he knows by now that he shouldn't because he's been told over and over and over to stop. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What appears to be happening is decades of brainwashing that cannabis is bad by the west, especially the United States, and religious groups now associating cannabis as something terrible and evil. Yes I have state the Soma-Haoma case before, but in the Avesta cannabis is mentioned. I have sourced an Avesta translation book written by Piloo Nanavutty which is considered very good by the Zoroastrian community and in the Avesta bhang is mention for medicinal value. I am not sure of your research Mangoe, but I find cannabis in Zoroastrian research often. The reason you do not hear of cannabis is exactly the same reason why the cannabis point of view was removed from the page. What better way to get rid of theories or information you do not like other than burying that information so nobody else will learn of the research and look further. Whether or not the practice or anointing oil recipe being wrong is blasphemous, or cannabis being this terrible evil plant today, there clearly is strong bias against the idea. As for the bismillah theory of Walid Shoebat, I read several different religious scholar's reviews of his theory. Being peer reviewed and a well know theory I posted the information only after researching the topic. The scholars either agreed with Shoebat, said theory was plausible or were totally against the his theory. Those that were against had several flaws in their analysis. Most commonly repeated error was posting only the printed text and not the original written text and saying there is no obvious relation. Of course this theory is always removed due to posing Islam in a negative light and there are those that will be very biased against such a theory. As for idiosyncratic advocacy, I can post on the talk page peer reviewed, scholastic works, as citations all day long, but there will be those that are biased the will remove the content claiming fringe, uncited, biased, etc... What I am trying to do is place researched and peer review information and theories on the pages to keep the neutral and unbiased. I am not being biased removing anything I feel is against my person beliefs and in fact encourage both sides conflicting views. Burying points of views and research only hinders the path to truth. Ploxhoi (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
We have been going over these references, but there is a common pattern: sources which are positive about the cannabis linkages are about cannabis or (less frequently) herbalism, while other articles generally deny the connection. But at any rate the constant trope in the argument of religious motivation for denying the connection is out of line. Personally my reaction to the discussion is surprise at a series of novelties in fields where I might be expected to be aware of these ideas. And what I have found is that the ideas are novel and don't have a lot of provenance. Correcting the prejudices of the ages is not our job. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want more sources I'll have to dig through my collection of many books again. For your information Piloo is a trusted source and I had her book near my desk when seen the section and decided to join the debate. You'll even find her works in the Library of Congress. I am not sure why you keep believing these ideas are novel or perhaps fringe, other than they are rejected by the orthodox or mainstream without any consideration. There are many other sources to cite, but I will have to find the books and cite them. Since this type of research is not my career I will have to make time to do this, as I have been studying the subject for personal interest for 15 years. Additionally I do not see why the works of Sula Benet, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Chris Bennett, Neil McQueen, Victor Sarianidi, and others have to be completely written off, as has been done. I never knew of these people until Wikipedia, although others have cited similar findings in the research I had done on Zoroastrianism. They too seem have done extensive research and published cited works for peer review. I am not trying to right great wrong, like I have said before wanting others to know there are other perspectives that have been well researched and should be included in articles in order to keep articles neutral of point of view. I know to cite references, but citing references does not seem to matter to some. There are many reference cited besides the ones I have cited. Just look at my talk page if you want to see the bias of some members on the subject. In some people's minds any ideas outside their box are taboo and need to be removed, even if there is research on the topic and has credible citations. Ploxhoi (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The claim that "you'll even find her works in the Library of Congress" is manifest evidence of a lack of competence here. LoC is an indiscriminate collector, and the presence of a work in the collections is evidence of publication, not merit. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I was stating a fact that some of her published works are in the Library of Congress. I am sure if you dig deeper you will find her works in journals as well. She has been an an authority on Zoroastrianism for a very long time. If you want look her up, Piloo Jungalwalla Nanavutty. Ploxhoi (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Til generally seems to consider it his duty to push any fringe position, and frequently features at WP:FTN either pushing fringe views and they end up there (e.g [8]), or attacking others at FTN and disrupting anything he can [9][10][11]. He seems to see himself as some sort of anti-skeptic writing great wrongs. These are just diffs from one specific page, but they happen everywhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Til generally seems to consider it his duty to push any fringe position" - BLATANT MISCHARACTERIZATION. I have repeatedly noticed that there are all sorts of partisan editors on wikipedia who are all too eager and willing to get their personal pov or hypothesis officially "endorsed" by smearing the countering view or hypothesis as "FRINGE" without real justification. This is seen as a much easier and more convenient way to "settle" unresolved controversies than admitting all the sources, even those we don't like personally. They feel it is wikipedia's role to decide who is orthodox and who the heretics are who must be persecuted with firebrands in hand, despite these other sources being easily available in real-world land, anywhere outside wikipedia's little bubble. Once this has been determined by these editor's determination, they can proceed to "fix" the article so it tells the reader whose view they deem "correct" and can be a one-sided article written to get "in your face" of every reader who disagrees or hold the opposite viewpoint - you know, one of those articles. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the above demonstrates my case more effectively than any words of my own could, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Briefly looked at the first example. I can understand why [12] is fringe, as Borrows refuses to disclose the location and let items be analyzed. In this case, should the topic be totally removed or included with factual note that the evidence has been authenticated as Borrows refuses to disclose the location and let items be analyzed. Seems a lot like Mormonism, which has not been flagged fringe, but has been noted that the artifacts have never been authenticated by anyone non-Mormon. Ploxhoi (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Holy anointing oil and cannabis. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And see[13] and [14] - he was lucky then he didn't get blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So the next step is for Til to drop an RFC on the talk page accusing his detractors of being a "faction" whose approach is "one-sided and antagonistic to NPOV". I submit that this is not the proper way to do these things. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are picking excerpts out of context and going over every word I breathe with a super fine tooth comb to find some reason for complaint. In describing the dispute, I made certain to write "TO ME THIS SEEMS one sided and antagonistic to NPOV." You have conveniently omitted the first four words to misleadingly make it appear as if I phrased the RFC non-neutrally rather than reporting both positions in the dispute as other rfcs do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I really wish you would focus more on the vast number of academic sources you are merely thumbing your noses at or brushing off as unworthy, and stop trying to make it about me. Even if you could muzzle the editors who consider these sources and make those editors go away, it still wouldn't make the academic sources themselves go away. It would be kind of like sticking wikipedia's head in the sand on everyone else's behalf. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Til, I thought briefly about dragging "seems" along, but there's no getting past "faction". And even with the qualifiers that was hardly a neutral presentation of the conflict.
I've looked at those "academic" sources (and I note that GScholar does particularly poorly here and mostly pulls up non-academic works), and I'm unconvinced. I keep coming back to the same conclusions: Benet's paper is a poor authority, and the fact that it finds use almost entirely within the marihuana advocacy/history community shows its lack of traction for non-advocates. I'm willing to discuss some small degree of mention, but that mention needs to tell the truth that this is basically the idea of one person picked up by one group of people from outside the field. It's impossible to move forward on this when we have you ranting on about how anti-fringe we are and Ploxhoi telling us that the cannabis theory is obviously right. Both are huge time-wasters. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Never said the cannabis theory is "obviously right" because its only a theory. You are so funny. What I said was over the 15 years of studying Zoroastrianism I have read many source stating the use of cannabis in Zoroastrianism, one being Piloo's book I had on my desk. Many of those sources are published and trusted sources. With Zoroastrianism having influences on Judaism and the other research that has been done to identify cannabis in holy anointing oil rather than calamus, the theory is not fringe, but definitely plausible and should be included. I say it again I believe there is enough evidence and research to characterize the theory as not being fringe and for the sake of neutrality be included. Ploxhoi (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What are you going to do to me for using the word "faction", crucify me? I didn't know it was a word we weren't allowed to use, or that it was an offensive or pejorative term, I used it deliberately thinking to find the most neutral expression possible for the, um, can I say "party" or would that be over the top? of editors that is vehemently disputing with the academic sources in question. As for "basically the idea of one person" - yes sometimes there are situations where some author comes up with a kooky idea and is a lone voice, nobody else picks it up. Fringe might apply better to those situations. Here though, you have whole sections of academia picking it up if you look honestly, making it a veritable school of thought, at least equal in number to the sources insisting on "calamus", yet with all this school of thought, you are still trying to play the "fringe" card. The cannabis = keneh bosem is suggested in one French scholarly source I found from 1926, it is not Sula Benet's original either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The word 'faction' means a small organised dissenting group within a larger group, so you are implying immediately that they are a minority. 'Some' would have done perfectly. And "Should all the academic sources hypothesizing that keneh bosm in Holy anointing oil refers to cannabis, be excluded as "FRINGE"?" is a loaded question. Since no one is likely to know every academic source making this claim (in all languages), the answer has to be 'no'. You need to mention specific sources. And you only mention 'fringe', ignoring the issue of WP:Weight. This isn't the way to frame an RfC and hopefully no one will try to answer a loaded question. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not know the word "faction" implied minority to you and don't know where you get that, it is not evident from eg. wikt:faction. I am comfortable with describing a situation as "two factions opposing each other" without intending any implications about their relative size, and I don't know who would take offense at the term. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe you thought I said "fraction"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Missed all this. It's the Oxford English Dictionary that says "a small organized dissenting group within a larger one", not my original research/opinion. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this going to go anywhere?[edit]

I am getting flipping tired of all the attacks on my integrity every time Til gets a bee in his bonnet about one of these subjects. After I pointed out that one of the books being used as a source for the cannabis thesis (and the best such, in my opinion) comes from "an 'alternative' (i.e., fringey) publisher", Til had to throw out yet another attack rather than addressing my response. It's a very safe bet that even if this doesn't go his way, I, along with any number of other people who try to ride herd on questionable archaeological and religious history claims, will be the subject of his ill-will when he rides in to defend some dubious notion which sticks it to The Establishment. This kind of behavior is his history, as plenty of people have linked to. Is this every going to be brought to some resolution? Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have to say I agree with Mangoe here - I don't see why an editor in any article advocating use of WP:RS academic sources (in this case myself as well as Debresser and Mangoe etc.) should be subject to a constant barrage of personal comment and attack language. We're not talking about one or two comments here, scroll up the Talk:Holy anointing oil discussion page and I count 60 to 80 individual comments which are ad hominems against editors in the space of 2 or 3 days. Is ANI the place to ask Til Eulenspiegel not to do this, or is there another venue? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again, you are putting a little "spin" on this to make it appear now as if I am opposed to use of academic sources. Once again, I am not opposed to any academic sources and want all points of view in academia represented on wikipedia. Once again, it is you, Mangoe, and Debresser whp are objecting to 100% academic sources, regardless of who published them, because you have imposed your own unique litmus test onto the English definition of the word "academic" here to be able to say "well, but the sources we DONTLIKE aren't really academic sources." Um, yes they are. This can be easily cured by getting an English dictionary and finding out that academic doesn't mean "only the stuff we agree with" by ANYONE'S DEFINITION except apparently yours. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There's no spin. This response on ANI is less inflamatory than language on the Talk page but fundamentally still a good example of exactly the problem; so again; Is ANI the place to ask Til Eulenspiegel not to do this, or is there another venue? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a good reason why, when I am dragged here because someone else doesn't like academic sources and wants to pillory me as a substitute for the academics who published the offending theories, it generally dies on the vine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Til, you keep saying this, and we keep having to go down the road of "not every academic source is a good source." Consider the smallpox blanket debacle, in which Til dragged out a book from a fringe publisher (which traced back to the notorious and discredited fraud Ward Churchill), a book on herbalism (which reviewers complained spent too much time on political commentary), and a third work which said that there's no evidence it ever happened. We're on the same road again: Til is insisting we have to accept the authority of a bunch of people who all reference the same paper (they admit it) and which has no traction outside groups either advocating marihuana or making questionable claims about the nature of religion. Making judgements about the merits of these sources is what we're supposed to do, and Til's arguments here ignore the reality that fringe ideas get published in seemingly respectable books. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again, our sole authority so far for calling this theory "FRINGE" is three wikipedia editors who disagree with the theory. It has MORE scholarly backing than whoever originated the "calamus" theory, so this is why I say this represents ABUSE of recklessly throwing around pejoratives like FRINGE where no reputable scholar has done so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Making judgements about the merits of these sources is what we're supposed to do" - Oh are you sure? You mean, like this? "We wikipedians are right about xyz theory, and all sources that contradict it (no matter how abundant) we therefore deign FRINGE and these published university academics cannot be mentioned or cited on wikipedia, because we know better than they do and know in our hearts that their theory is just wrong and ours is right." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that many of Til Eulenspiegel's edits are on articles that fall under the ArbCom Pseudoscience ruling, if an appropriate case can be made for his activity there, WP:AE may be the best venue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Khabboos[edit]

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting [15] is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".
*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/Questions#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHindu_Kush. Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal[edit]

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You said that the user has lied.
Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.
Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?
Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.
EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.
You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

─────────────────────────AcidSnow Could you explain to me why the sentence "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera" is not relevant as it appears to be sourced? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your a 100% right Flat Out that it "appears" to be sourced and if that was the only thing the source said or that it was a "hate crime" or anything related to it than it would also be ok to add. However, the article goes on to say they were out to "avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here". As you can see it was done out of anger and nothing to do with persecution. It is also a miss representation of the source as the section it's being used is discussing persecution of Hindus. This is just another one of his attempts to push his POV. Those were the three reasons: nothing to do with persecution, miss representation of the article, and POV pushing. AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. It's important to remember that not everyone has the benefit of all of the details of the disagreement and that you will need to be specific both here and at arbitration. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Understood, Flat Out I have edited my response at the Request for mediation.. Could you close it now since it's now pointless to have it open? Also do I continue too wait for assistance? AcidSnow (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I cant close. I will review your additions at Arbitration - Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Abusive administrator threatening editors for hurting their feelings[edit]

I recently became aware of a situation where 2 admins (User:Nyttend and User:Orlady) were using the administrator toolset abusively against User:WilliamJE. Not only were they disregarding policy by skipping directly to an only warning message before blocking, they are miscategorizing comments about their behavior as attacks. I believe this is because they are admins and the ones who are telling them they are being abusive are mere editors. I left a comment here that I felt they were being abusive. Nyttend then reverted it as a personal attack here and then threatened to block me (as single warning) if I continued these "personal attacks". I informed him on my talk page that he needed to reread what the definition of a personal attack is and to get soe thicker skin. I also told him at that point he was a disgrace and should resign. Then I reverted his reversion of my edit to Orlady's talk page here. My opinion of admins on this site is extremely low so I don't think anything will come out of this but I feel I need to report those 2 admins for abusing their tools so its at least on record. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • For clarity: If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying you are not User:WilliamJE. Correct? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Correct, I am not WilliaJE. He is not the only one on this site that has a problem with the rampant admin abuse that goes unchecked and I stopped editing largely because of it. I stumbled onto the discussion when I was looking at an article Orlady had edited, which led me to the discussion earlier today. I was curious so I looked more into it. I am utterly unimpressed with either admin but especially Nyttend who seems to think that policy does not apply to him and its not any other editors place to tell him about policy. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering the remarkable timing of your edits, that's an extraordinary claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Good AGF but I see your not even an admin so you can't even do anything about this. I am much more hated than William, I used to be Kumioko but I am not editing under my old username anymore nor am I really editing this site anymore largely because of admin abuse that goes unchecked just like this and the communities failure to do anything about it. Nyttend has always been arrogant and abusive towards non admins and his decisions are frequently wrong so I couldn't simply sit idly by and watch him run another productive editor from the site with his attitude and abusive battleground behavior. At this point its obvious no one cares so I'm going to log back off again. It looks like abusive admins and battleground behavior from the goes unchecked again. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Look at some of this IP's edits. Are they in line with WP:NPA?
This IP is jumping into a totally unrelated situation in which William, immediately after coming off a civility block, tells the blocking admin that she's done something that "low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience" would do; tells the blocking admin "You continue to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence. That's reprehensible. As for following around, that isn't harassment. Its making sure you and no other administrator abuse your tools and when you do someone holds all of you accountable and tries to fix the shit you've done to other people"; responds to a comment I made by saying "Not going to say anymore. You can't win arguments against idiots as my Mom used to say or people without a conscience. Absolute power makes that disappear in people"; and refers to an old case of which I'm not aware by saying "TigerShark is so incompetent that he proposed 0RR for Joe with no exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations". William was blocked making tons of unfounded accusations, e.g. that I was citing myself by claiming that this edit was by someone else. Included in WP:WIAPA's definition of personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" — when you make a claim like this, arguing that citing myself by linking to someone else, how possibly do you have evidence? Meanwhile, note that William late last year got a month-long block for "highly confrontational, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to dealing with others, personal attacks, inapproprate use of user page and holding and acting on grudges". Some time later, you say "Instead I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!" You're obviously still taking a battleground approach and holding (and threatening to act on) grudges. Someone explain to me why we tolerate this? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Really? You know that non admins can see the block log and history right? YOU KNOW,that all we need to do is look at his block log and see that the last block was in October of 2012 right? The block Orlady performed was purely disruptive and your attitude towards WilliaJE was as well. Anyone would be annoyed if someone, admin or otherwise reverted their edits without discussion, derailed an AFD and refused to discuss it and when you did it was snide comments and arrogance. Anyone would be annoyed at that. Your approach to all of this is what's highly confrontational and battleground. Your simply counting on your fellow admins to just stand beside you and back yo up and not look into the problem, which may well be right but I am hoping that someone will take the time to look through your history of battleground conduct on this site. Its clearly evident in your edit history and in your conduct here. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
[EC]My version of the history, for the benefit of those of you who are addicted to wikidrama: This relates to some interactions between User:WilliamJE and User:Nyttend, related to Wirtland (micronation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wirtland (micronation). The on-wiki mostly occurred on Nyttend's talk page; also see User talk:Mark Arsten#Wirtland (micronation). Apparently there was some activity off-wiki on the Wirtland website, where complaints against Wikipedia and Nyttend were posted. After some amount of discussion:
  • Nyttend warned WilliamJE about personal attacks: [16].
  • WilliamJE removed the warning with an edit summary saying: "Take it to ANI. Your behavior on the page is reprehensible and you're an administrator. This is the 2nd time you've threatened me with a block for calling you on your bs."
  • Nyttend gave WilliamJE a final warning on personal attacks
  • WilliamJE removed it; edit summary reads: "Take it ANI or resign as administrator."
  • Orlady noticed that edit summary on WilliamJE's talk page (which I had watchlisted in August 2013 in connection with an unrelated dispute where I was sympathetic to WilliamJE's position) and posted "Edit summaries can also be personal attacks -- such as this one: [diff]. I strongly recommend that you restrain your animosity."
  • Interactions continued at Nyttend's and Mark Arsten's talk pages.
  • After Nyttend posted on my talk page to thank me for getting involved, WilliamJE posted a new diatribe against Nyttend on my talk page.
  • Perceiving the comments to be a continuation of personal attacks, escalated to the new venue of my talk page, I went to WilliamJE's talk page and posted an "only warning" regarding the continuation of his personal attacks. (Text included: You've already had a "final warning," so I could block you right now. However, I don't like to do that to productive contributors, so I'm hoping this warning will make a bigger impression on you, coming from a different user. If you persist in your obsessive (and apparently baseless) personal attacks on User:Nyttend, you should expect to receive a forced vacation from Wikipedia editing. )
  • WilliamJE removed the warning (edit summary: Take it to ANI) and promptly returned to my talk page to make a series of three edits in which he added to his bill of particulars against Nyttend [17]. That evidence of his commitment to continuing the attacks on Nyttend, immediately after my warning, led me to conclude that it was time for an enforced wikibreak to help him calm down, so I blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks.
  • The rest of the history that I know about is on display at WilliamJE's talk page and my talk page (scroll down to find the several relevant sections).
IMO, this wasn't about "hurting my feelings" or Nyttend's. This was about deliberate and persistent disruption in the form of personal attacks. Unfortunately, WilliamJE's subsequent comments to me do not lead me to believe that he intends to give up that behavior. (Particularly when he said: "What you did to me is permanently on my block log. That's the Wikipedia equivalent of giving someone a criminal record. Only low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience do that. Your blocking me for harrassment when you don't know what constitutes it or explain how I was doing that makes you to be an incompetent if not administrator. Especially since almost everything you did or said towards me starting with that talk page message and your first comment to me on Nyttend's page has been labbeled dead wrong and or heavily criticized by everyone around Your buddy buddy with Nyttend is reprehensible and should be the cause of your losing administrative tools. ... I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!") --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
In fairness this ANI is less about Orlady than NYT. NYT seems to have the attitude that policy doesn't apply to him because he is an admin and other editors (particularly non admins) don't have the right to question him on his edits. He has been repeatedly flying off the handly accusing editors of personal attacks for petty reasons. Orlady's problems was her rash action in defense of NYT. The walls of text that are forming to distract from the and the lack of discussion shows pretty effectively what the result of this discussion is going to be. No action against admin abuse once again. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
...regardless of anything else in this case one way or the other, 108, if an editor has a problem with admins, they can bring it to AN/I; you don't need to "white knight" for them. If they have a problem, let them address it. (Also if you really are Kumioko as you claim, your statement "I am not editing under my old username anymore" is somewhat curious seeing as you were, in fact, doing so within the present week.) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It most probably is Kumioko, who is a recidivist WP:DIVA, and is currently once again "retired" - but will be back before long, if his usual pattern holds. BMK (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
See [18], Didn't last long [19], [20]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What's conspicuous about this discussion is any lack of mention of what these personal attacks were. As far as I can tell, at least one of the precipitating incidents was Nyttend starting a deletion discussion of Wirtland (micronation) and then trumping that by laying a redirect over it without discussion. [21] Another user reverted that, Nyttend undid that, and then WilliamJE reverted that with the "take it to AFD" remark— which was entirely appropriate. This turned into a templating fight between the two and then devolved from there. WilliamJE's behavior was hardly exemplary but after all the whole dramafest could have been avoided by letting the AFD run normally. It took admin powers to make the conflict stick the way it did, and handily Orlady was there to supply them. And equally Kumioko was available to come and complain and therefore take the blame, whether he had anything to do with it or not.
The original complaint had merit. I'm not an admin, and I couldn't have pulled off what Nyttend (assisted by Orlady) did. The AFD should have been let to run, and using admin powers to make sure it didn't was an abuse. Everyone involved should take a round of trouting and go on. Mangoe (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{{archivetop|status=no further admin action|result=The blocking issue was already resolved by Sphilbrick prior to the opening of this thread. Concerns should be politely addressed to the admins on their talk page(s). <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 13:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}}


The above discussion was created not on behalf of another editor who's problem has been resolved, it was created because of the issue with admins abusing their access to the tools and nothing was done about it. Just another case of admins protecting their own. Nyttend is an abusive admin who needs to be dealt with before his actions continue to cause editors to leave the site. Orlady jumped to rash action to back up her friend and block William for no reason. I am not using my account because I locked it and scrambled the password. I don't need an account to report abusive admins to ANI and I have a serious problem with this discussion being closed because you found it was me. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. The problem with William was addressed but this isn't about the, this is about the problem with admins abusing their tools and acting in a way that is not acceptable. And to BMK if you don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, then stay out of it, I'm getting tired of editors like you involving yourself. Your just as bad as the abusive admins the only good thing is you aren't an admin because the community recognizes as I do you aren't fit to be one. I also find it curious that there are no admins at all in this discussion. Just a bunch of editors which makes me think admins don't care that other admins are being abusive to editors. And you wonder why people aren't editing anymore. Every admin should be ashamed of themselves for letting their peers act this way. Its just disgraceful. Just one more thing, maybe if the admins on this site would start acting like admins and do something about the abusive admins and abusive editors like BMK above I wouldn't feel compelled to keep coming back. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
close struck, refactored as comment. NE Ent 15:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish Kumiko hadn't started this thread. (I'm trying to choose my words carefully; note that I did not say Kumiko has no right to ask that this group address admin abuse which may be occurring with respect to others.) The reasons for this wish are threefold:

  1. While I consider it acceptable to request action on potential abuse involving other parties, it complicates the solution situation, and would be best limited to situations where the direct party is unwilling or unable to bring a request. William has indicated plans to bring such a request, so this one just muddies the waters.
  2. Kumiko knows that his reputation proceeds him, which may lead others, fairly or unfairly, to be tempted to discount the concerns. This may end up hurting William, which presumably is not Kumiko's goal.
  3. I think it is best if ANI actions are sought when other avenues fail. This incident is fairly fresh, and I felt that some progress, admittedly small, was occurring. My personal feeling is that ANI is for disputes that cannot be resolved among the parties, or are spiraling out of control. While I do not pretend it is likely that William and Nyttend will reach an amicable solution soon, I thought it was useful to try. I addressed Nyttend with some of my concerns, and that discussion is ongoing.

Kudos to User:Mangoe for a nice summary of the underlying incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion on William's talk page. The issues are complex, and I don't believe that Sphilbrick and I agree on every nuance, but that said, S Philbrick's conduct in trying to find a constructive way forward was exemplary and they have the patience of a saint.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal[edit]

Kumioko might annoy some, but his consensus is that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of disruptive...yet. Though I did just block what I now believe might be one of his IPs for a short term for personal attacks.--v/r - TP 07:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As long as the IP/Kumioko saw fit to add to this closed report and NE Ent (the closer) saw fit to undo his close, I propose a block of User:KumiokoCleanStart and his IP for disruptive editing, harassment, and trolling. I would make the block of Kumioko at least one month and the duration of the IP's block is largely unimportant as it is a dynamic IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Kumioko's comments are only disruptive if we choose to make them that way, and suppressing them only feeds the "admins protect their own" meme. (and those of us who are apparently "just as bad.") NE Ent 16:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No need to block the IP for everyday ANI ranting, though it probably would be a good idea to indefblock the KumiokoCleanStart account, as they say "I locked it and scrambled the password" and therefore any further edits from that account would mean it's somehow been compromised. Other than that this should probably be closed as it's unlikely to lead to any action or productivity, just drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko is not ranting just at ANI (see [22]). That said, my interest is in seeing Kumioko blocked. If the IP continues to edit after that, he can be blocked for evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Huh. Ok, fair enough, I see your point. I wasn't aware the rant had spilled over elsewhere too. Still, it's just WP:DIVA stuff. It won't rise to disruption or blocking unless it continues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
First I want to say that if you want to waste time blocking the KumiokoCleanStart account go ahead. Many of you have been wanting to do that for a long time anyway Its really a pointless waste of time but its your time to waste Second, I locked that account so if I choose to edit as an IP its not block evasion. I not really hiding the fact of who I was and if you took more interest in dealing with abusive admins like Nyttend, Sandstein and a stack of others than in silencing me for trying to bring attention to the problem a lot less editors would be leaving, more editors would be joining and Wikipedia would be a happier place. Lastly, My comments at Arcom were due to the poorly written "review" that invites increased abuse by admins who already abuse it and will continue to drive the problem of editors being treated negatively on this site. If that's not a problem for you Bbb23 then I' not sure what I can say other than that is disappointing. I would also add that if your intent is to send a message to editors that going to ANI with abusive admin issues isn't a to be done on this site and its better for them to simply stop editing and go like so many others have done, then go ahead and block me. I am already disappointed at how this whole thread has turned into a bash Kumioko for bringing an admin abuse issue fest. Its clear to me at this point that even admins with a history of abuse are more desired than editors or those who want to improve the system and make it fair. Adminship is no big deal and I am tired of seeing it treated like its the keys to theh kingdom. Many of you are disgracful and should be ashamed for not taking the issue more seriously. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko, you haven't been an "editor" here in any real sense in a very long time. You contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia itself, and you clog up Wikipedia space with your incessant whining and complaining about just about everything. One wonders why, if you hate everything about the Wikipedia community so much, you continue to hang around the place, torturing youself. Surely there are other worthwhile projects on the Internets that could use your apparently limitless energy, that perhaps you could focus on in some positive way.

There was a time, a long time ago, when you were (I am told) a productive editor. There was also a more recent time when you were indef blocked, and the community unblocked you. I said when that happened that it was a mistake, and I've seen nothing since to change my mind. Does it mean nothing to you that virtually no one here has actually defended you? Even many of those who opposed the block that Bbb23 proposed gave variations on "Let the diva rant" as their reasoning.

C'mon, man, don't you have any self-respect? Get out and find some place that you're happy contributing to. BMK (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, its because of editors and admins like you, that constantly insulted me at every opportunity of every day that I stopped contributing. Not because I couldn't take it, because no one stopped it and allowed it to continue. Some even dogpiled on. For years I was trying to build a collaborative project with WikiProject United States and you and others did nothing but complain about how I had no right to tag your articles. How WPUS was trying to take over the world one tag at a time and on and on and on. You insisted I couldn't be trusted with the tools when I was already doing hundreds of admin related tasks a month I just wasn't getting the credit (for lack of a better term) because I couldn't hit enter and had to let some admin that generally didn't even know what they were looking at implement it. Then I was told I didn't have enough experience with admin tasks because I couldn't implement them myself. Then I look around and I see admins violating policy and abusing the tools and nothing being done about it. Rude and nasty comments being left on editors pages, IP's blocked indef without warnings, admins being sent to Arbcom for severe violations and not even admonished. Baiting editors to justify being able to block them. Then I have editors like you, that just bitch and moan and snipe your comments and I am supposed to just grin and bear it but then if I reply I am blocked for incivility. Its absurd and that is why this project lost a 10, 000 edit plus a month editor who wanted to help build the project and collaborate. Because it didnt want to get rid of the ones who were destroying it. So now, I don't even care if you block me. Because its clear to me at this point that the community doesnt want positive contributors they would rather have A-holes like you BMK and Nyttend, Sandstein, Fram, Guerillero, Rshen and a string of others. That's why editors aren't joining and why editors and admins are leaving in droves. Its because of YOU and people like YOU. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see any policy justifications for a block--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Let the diva rant I'm sure that no admin is interested in playing whack-a-troll with Kumioko. Just revdel particularly nasty comments and let WP: DENY kick in. However, I agree with Starblind: a block of the KumiokoCleanStart account would be appropriate. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, no basis for a block, and I'm also opposed to this talk of "divas". I've seen essays, maybe even policies, though I can't locate them right now, that exhort us to consider the fact that there's a human being behind each account and IP, and to not talk to them in a way we wouldn't face to face with, say, a neighbour. I've always disliked the essay WP:DIVA as giving encouragement to forgetting the human aspect. I don't think linking to it serves any other purpose than to show the linker is superior to the wikiholics who "storm off" or "take their ball and go home", or various other amusing ways of putting it. The people that I've known who've "stormed off" "accompanied by a long diatribe against whatever [supposedly] petty issue drove them away this time" have done it because they've been deeply upset and have really intended to leave for good, not because they're hoping for "Please don't go" messages. Then they tend to find they can't shake the addiction and often return in some form, to a storm of ridicule. Ha ha, what fun. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC).
I agree with the human being part, but, of course, whenever we block or ban an account, we do so to a human being, not necessarily because they're a "bad" person, but because they disrupt Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wrong, in so many ways. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, precisely correct. As proof, the next time you get blocked, either under this IP address, or another, or with your regular account, contact a lawyer and an elected representative and complain that your "rights" are being infringed. See how far you get before someone stops returning your calls. BMK (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You're not the first person to come around here crying "freedom of speech". And you won't be the last to accordingly be summarily ignored for having explicitly demonstrated you have no understanding of how Wikipedia, or the Internet in general, works. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the IP is right BMK and The Bushranger you need to stop acting like jerks. This is why people leave. There are much better ways to address people and since this demeanor is reflected by both of you frequently it appalls me that neither of yo have been banned from the site at this point. You act like this all the time for no reason other than to be assholes and enough is enough. If anyone should be blocked its the 2 of you with your history. The fact that the Bushranger hasn't been stripped of his admin rights long ago for generally being a jerk to everyone is equally appalling. Firther proof that one does not need to be nice to editors on this site as long as they are an admin. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kumioko, my apologies to you that I am not an admin, because I know it deprived you of yet another opportunity to cry "Admin abuse!", which seems to be your primary activity as self-appointed amateur (and incompetent) Wiki-ombudsman. (And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.) BMK (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You know, given the comments virtually everyone else has made to me, the news I've been "a jerk to everyone" is quite a surprise. However, I don't suffer fools gladly, and when someone says something that is utterly and completely wrong to the point where they really don't have an excuse for not knowing that it's wrong (and, therefore, can be assumed to be trolling), then I'm going to be rather blunt in letting them know. The only way I "act like a jerk", to use your wording, to someone? Is if they are a jerk. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as essentially being pointless. Blocking the IP will have no effect, as it is dynamic. Blocking the KumiokoCleanStart account isn't a terrible idea, but as it isn't being used at the moment, then it is an unnecessary action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order. Since I'm rather closely involved here, my yes/no opinion is already obvious, so I'll not weary you with reasoning. All I'll say is that if Kumioko's actions warrant blocking, we should block without regard to the technical side of things: if we block the account or one of the IP addresses for disruption and he doesn't edit during the duration of the block, all is well. If he continues editing via other IP addresses, his actions will fall under WP:EVADE. If a block is warranted, let's impose it now; the only reason not to block him is if we decide that he hasn't done anything warranting a block. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Kumioko is retired anyway and has a dynamic IP. Guess what he'll do... Epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stupid blocking Kumioko as he'll just return with a new IP, & Since he's now an IP user I'm pretty sure he's not gonna give 2 shits as to whether his accounts are blocked or not! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:42, 3 February 2014 (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.

Nyttend abusing his tools[edit]

"Abuse of administrator tools" is a serious accusation. WP:INVOLVED requires that administrator's not use their additional privileges in disputes they are intimately involved in. However, the evidence used is not tool use. Instead, it is simple editing which any anonymous account or registered user has the capability of making. Elevated rights were not used and therefore they were not abused. Further, this thread is being used by an anonymous IP to abuse and bash an administrator with, again, no evidence. OP is strongly advised to read the applicable policy (WP:INVOLVED) before making future accusations because next time will be a boomerang. An accusation of harassment might be better suited to the OP's evidence but it's the OP's reckless accusations that has destroyed their credibility in this matter. Claim 'admins covering for their own' if you choose, but this is really a case of OP failing to provide adequate evidence. BLUF: Facts do not support tool abuse.--v/r - TP 07:02, 4 February 2014 (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.

It's a very simple case. He issued[23] me a level 3 NPA warning on my talk page. What in these here[24], here[25], here[26], here[27], and here[28] here[29] posts that were my times addressing him before the warning merits a level 3 warning. Nothing at all.

Nyttend issued a level 3 warning as an attempt to bully me because he didn't like being criticized. That is an abuse of tools as an administrator....William 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

William, are you aware of what we mean by "abuse of tools"? It means that "editors should not act as administrators...in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Anyone, even someone logged out, could have made all of the edits I've made around here, aside from the original redirect, which probably requires autoconfirmed status. Let me remind you that you've just accused me of a bigtime WP:INVOLVED violation, and that's a serious accusation. WP:WIAPA says that serious accusations require serious evidence: you've provided absolutely no evidence of misuse of tools as an administrator. Why again should this not be considered a personal attack by you on me? Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If that is all you consider abuse Nyttend then you definitely should not be an admin because you don't have an understanding of when you should and shouldnt use the tools. You also cannot keep claiming personal attack when people are showing you to be abusing the tools. That is abuse of authority as an admin if not an abuse of the tools themselves. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Calling people "jerks" and "assholes" is not acceptable. Doing so while attempting to show that others are being abusive is not going to win you any points.[30][31] Yeah, you feel you and others been attacked/wronged/whatever. It's not an acceptable response. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I call it how I see it these days. If they act like good editors I'll treat them that way. If they act like a bunch of shit heads then that's how I'll treat them. Well I used to be nice and it got me no where. I was repeatedly insulted, told I couldn't be trusted even after years and hundreds of thousands of edits simply because I don't conform to the Admins are gods mentality. So now I am an outcast. 10, 000 plus edits aren't getting done every month and the lack of trust in this culture and assumption of bad faith finally got me to the point where I just don't care. If the admins aren't going to follow policy and be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want (as long as the target isn't an admin) ad get away with it then this project is really hopelessly lost. Since not one single admin, Jimbo or even you seem to care that the handful of abusive admins are destroying this site, running off editors and generally making the editing environment here miserable, then there really isn't much point in me editing articles until that gets changed. Everyone knows there are abusive admins but no one has the morale courage to do anything. So I tried, and look what happened to me. That will happen to any respectable editor who cares more about the project than some petty admin and their personal POV. If you care about the project and want to improve it your a heretic, if you just want to keep in your corner and continue to let this place fester further into a shithole, then you too can be promoted to admin. And if I could take back my 450, 000 edits and several hundred articles I would! Because this project doesn't deserve dedicated editors who care about collaborating and building it. You want to impress me Summer, save the accusations and do something to improve the culture of this project before Wikipedia is referred to in the same way as AOL and MySpace and that day isn't too far off. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
He lies too in message that came along with the level three warning[[32]. To quote word for word- 'Let me be substantially firmer than I was before. You completely failed to observe that I never even edited the AFD, but you recklessly accused me of vandalism. You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page, but you accuse me of disrupting it by making edits without explanation. As WP:WIAPA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks, and you accused me of making a bad-faith nomination when I never made any nomination at all. Just read his edit summary of this edit[33]- Nominating for deletion. He issues a level 3 warning saying he never nominated anything for deletion. His edit history says that isn't true at all. Also the statement 'You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page is a lie also. I removed the AFD tags completely with this edit[34] He didn't give any rationale for a nominating for deletion see posts here[35] and here[36] or for his converting the page to a redirect in this edit[37] other than saying 'better idea yet'. His grounds for me making personal attacks in the warning are total bs. The abuse of warning tags should have gotten him a block alone....William 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
No comment on the overall substance, but where has he (and I quote) "abused his tools"? Has he blocked you inappropriately? Wrongly protected a page? Dumping a template may be tossing power around, but if he doesn't use his tools, he's not abusing his tools DP 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend is a manipulative individual who uses his knowledge of policy and status as an administrator to further his own POV. He frequently blocks editors who disagrees with him, he has a negative personal demeanor towards other non admins, he misinterprets policy to allow him to win disagreements, etc. He is only one of many disgraceful admins though and I don't expect anything to be done about his actions than has been done to any other abusive admin. No matter how abusive the admin is, the only way to remove the tools from one is if they resign the tools themselves and Nyttend isn't about to do that. He thinks he deserves to have the tools. He does not! I could list a long list of good admins to use as examples and he would not be one of them. He would be on the naughty list. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe[edit]

It seems we have IP contributors coming out of the woodworks to !vote there with little or no edits elsewhere. As the nominator, I'm obviously involved in that AfD, but the page might justify semi-protection to save the closing admin from checking/clicking on the contribs of each of these IPs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag 'em up as Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, and trust in admins to evaluate consensus.
Remember that the idea of Wikipedia is to provide info; maybe a *little* article about that company might be OK? If it's not spammy, I mean; and if it meets WP:GNG.
The number of spammy advocates shouldn't matter, and there's always DRV, but really, think of the big picture; from a quick look, I imagine the co passes GNG, so we can keep a little non-spammy page about 'em? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, definitely add {{spa}} to those IP editors' comments if that concerns you. Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, more vigilance besides mere tagging is needed given weird edits like [38] [39] (both of those have been reverted), obvious double !voting (same user/sig), repetition of "sources have been found! see above!" with no specifics etc. I have been involved in quite a few company AfDs lately, but this one seems to exceed the usual level of questionable (desperate?) tactics. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of block and admin authority[edit]

Block reversed, blocking admin now on 11-month Wikibreak. Seems there isn't anything left to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 4 February 2014 (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.