Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853

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

Noticeboard archives


Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard[edit]

Assistance from one or more Admins and any experienced editors is requested with issues related to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (yes there is such a thing). Short synopsis; we have an editor who has created around 160 articles, and almost all of the ones we have looked at so far have major problems. We over at the tin foil hat noticeboard are sending out an SOS. Any help is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose a Topic-Ban on New Articles in Article Space[edit]

I propose that this editor be topic-banned from creating new articles in article space (rather than via the AFC review process), since he or she is cluttering article space with a large number of articles that need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy crap batman--v/r - TP 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The combination of refusal to communicate with other editors, fringe topics (need less on here, not more) and the obvious vast amounts of original research. Their intent does not seem to be malicious, but they've chosen the wrong platform. All this belongs in their blog. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support seems pretty obvious that these articles need to go through AfC and that the user isn't willing to do that without some strong handed encouragement. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question How will this go any better at WP:AFC? Some of the articles appear to me, a non expert in Hindu material, to be potentially direct translations form a worthy book or set of texts. I am wondering whether it might not be 'our' problem that 'we' cannot understand them easily as submissions in clearer English. A comment from an experienced, perhaps immersed, editor would be relevant to this discussion before moving to a draconian apparent remedy. For example, if they be direct translations or quotations from learned texts then we should, surely, treat them in an identical manner to other such texts an the editor should be granted the same courtesies as are extended to editors creating articles in other faiths/disciplines.
This material is arcane, certainly, but is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles? If proper then there is no issue save for our understanding the material. If improper then remedies are already available to you, ranging from deletion through to blocking the editor. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles?" Yes, in the way it is written. It presents material from Hindu astrology as uncontested fact. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent: A host of reasons: 1) AFC space isn't indexed by search engines, 2) AFCs arn't searched by our search bar without going to more advanced options, 3) AFCs can be deleted easier by CSD guidelines, 4) Editors in AFC space review it before the first 2 things limitations get removed, 5) AFC has a giant "THIS IS A DRAFT" banner.--v/r - TP 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If it is not proper for the articles to be here, and I suspected it was not for the reasons stated by AndyTheGrump, might the correct route not be a bulk AfD? If it is not proper then AFC is not the place for them either, surely? I come back to my thoughts that one does not need extraordinary measures to deal with this. I have never heard of a topic ban against creation of new mainspace articles and I feel intellectually against it for a great many reasons. Fiddle Faddle 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am cementing and formalising my opinion as a firm Oppose. I have made a asmall edit to my original text, adding the word "clearer" as a modifier for "English"Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Timtrent (Fiddlefaddle). Look at this revision of Rasasvada, for example, which Aditya soni had created, and nobody else had edited it except one editor adding a single cleanup tag. It's quite difficult to read and understand, but that's because I'm completely unfamiliar with Indian philosophy; the article appears to have solid sources, and the difficult-to-understand comes partly from the author's way of writing, which makes me suspect that the author isn't fluent in English. As a result, I can form only two conclusions: either it's a decent article on a specialised topic, warranting only some wording cleanup, or its problems are profound enough that only a specialist can understand them. Neither one warrants the ban that's proposed here: if it's a decent article, we shouldn't sanction the guy, and if a specialist is required, the article will sail straight through AFC because people over there aren't specialists in Indian philosophy — AFC is good for filtering problems that anyone can understand, not things like this. Either levy no sanctions at all, or prohibit creation through AFC as well; if the nominator were to remove the AFC creation option, I would be neutral. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the very first section, he has it entirely based on a primary source, Second Quantization (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as much too broad. If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I do not think the editor in question is being malicious here. But whether intentionally or not, the serious problems with so many of these articles is creating an enormous amount of work for everyone else. The FTN Board is not exactly one of the more well traveled ones and we just don't have enough regulars to deal with well over a hundred suspect articles. (Sometimes we are stretched to handle even normal posts and issues that pop up.) Beyond which the editor's refusal to engage with the community and take some advice on board or show some regard for standards and consensus makes it almost impossible not to see more problems down the road without the new article creation ban. In short, I support the ban because I believe that without it we are going to continue to see the creation of questionable articles on a scale that will further severely tax the limited resources of the community to fix or delete. I am still trying to come up with a sane way of dealing with 160 articles that need to be checked and possibly deleted or mass migrated somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Changing position to Oppose based on compelling arguments from several editors, as well as closer examination of the editor's record by Salimfadhley, whose judgment I trust, and who concluded the issues are likely not as widespread or serious as initially thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Mixed view here. This seems like good content and it seems clear that the user knows a lot about Hindu astrology. The real problem here is that the articles themselves are badly written. Readers of WP should not have to be experts in Hindu astrology to get through even a single paragraph, but that's kind of the issue we have here. I think this user's material and knowledge are valuable but the articles he is making should spend some time in userspace being edited a bit. It doesn't have to be perfect by any means, but it has to at least look like it was written in English. Would anyone be available to help mentor or copy-edit this content? I can do some work with the grammar myself but I would like someone (perhaps from Wikiproject Mythology, Wikiproject Hinduism, or Wikiproject Astrology) to help out since they might have familiarity with the information and can offer more direct constructive criticism. Alicb (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A ban from creating new articles related to this topic might give this editor an opportunity to improve the existing articles to a point where they meet the WP:NFRINGE standard. I would prefer this than to have to manually review the hundreds of articles on this subject. My greater concern is that this editor feels that this subject (Hindu Astrology) is somehow exempt from the normal rules that govern articles about religious topics in Wikipedia. As a result we have over a hundred pages most of which would never have got past AFC review, this is a prime example [1]. The comment about Einstein in the lede is an automatic 5 on the Crackpot Index. Let's not allow articles about Hinduism to be of lower quality than articles about other religions. If editors were writing such blatant gobbledygook about Christianity or Judaism I think we'd be quick to delete it. I think we need to be consistent in our standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why do you think this would get stopped at AFC? It appears to have decent sourcing, and to someone unfamiliar with the subject, the only problem is the comparatively poor English. Most people at AFC are totally ignorant of Hinduism and other Indian philosophy (not complaining; I am too), so if an article's not badly sourced, they have no reason to object to it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Regular AFC reviewers tend to have sufficient clue to recognize when to call upon subject specialists from relevant WikiProjects for assistance. Such requests for help are routinely done for drafts about highly technical, arcane or obscure subjects that are hard for non-specialists to evaluate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't take an expert in Hindu Astrology to realise that it wasn't "an evil and ruinous yoga" that made Einstein perform poorly in his studies, Second Quantization (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely. Miniapolis 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I do not know where to begin from.

I started my exercise of creating new pages by first locating the most important and relevant topics that had not been earlier dealt with by any contributor, and having done that one by one I took up those topics, worked on them and created the pages on Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology, the subjects that are known to me. Nowhere have I expressed my own thoughts or done original research; I have based all information included therein as has been available to me online and in the texts that are in my possession which texts also find an online mention. I never thought my well-intentioned efforts would one day cause the kind of problem they have. As an ardent follower of Indian philosophy I was merely obeying the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. Knowledge is the light that reveals the true nature of things and removes ignorance; knowledge purifies the mind, that mind which involves all human beings in duality to suffer the pangs of pleasure and pain. It seems I have failed in this task for I have not been able to convey properly.

Friends, I am not a preacher and I am also not a teacher set in the mold of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Ramana, Varahamihira, Vaidyanatha or Kalidasa. I am an ordinary human being. Philosophy and astrology are difficult subjects to handle. This I know. They are all the more difficult for those who do not know these subjects. Where to begin from I simply do not know. It was long ago said – "they do not know who know, those who do not know, know" - which paradoxical situation will always remain due to the limitations affecting our thoughts and acts.

It has been nice meeting you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I think that you are making a lot of useful contributions of information that is badly needed on Wikipedia. There are a few concerns with language that I think we can address but as long as you provide the sources for the information that you provide (either a link to a website or the names/page numbers of print texts) then that should be good enough for other editors to work on. It may be time to call on the users at Wikiproject Hinduism to take a hand in working on these articles. Alicb (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Alicb, no information in my 160 odd articles is without a direct reference to the source. I have dutifully provided the relevant links to the websites, given the names of the books, their authors and page numbers. I have neither promoted myself nor anyone else. There is no problem with the language either, because as far as is possible I have used the same words and expression that has been used by the authors of those very books and articles. Why should there be a problem in accessing those sources, I fail to understand. Moreover, there is already talk of difficulty in handling 100 odd intended AFDs pertaining to the pages I have created, doubt has also been raised about the ability of the editors who had reviewed those pages, and to top it all, my efforts have been termed as utter non-sense and a hoax and therefore already stand summarily dismissed. Then, I do not understand why so much time and effort is now being wasted just to prove my efforts are a bunch of trash. Even if all 160 pages are deleted I stand to lose nothing at all since I have already gained a great deal by way of revision of my knowledge while writing these pages, which revision has served as my Upasana (contemplation). And I am sure some readers must have also gained and improved their knowledge. Through your agency I request for the charade that is being presently played out to end, it is sickening to say the least. Already some very harsh and bad words have been used belittling my efforts, the kind of words I never use; that is enough, there should not be any more of it. There should not be any further delay in deleting my 160 odd articles. I hope you will speak on my behalf and have all 160 pages created by me deleted soon. After the requested deletion is done I shall quit Wikipedia and enjoy my liberation. Nice knowing you.Aditya soni (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. There is a beautiful passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad (in the ninth Anuvaka) dealing with this. Learn and pass on the knowledge. That is what Wikipedia is about. That is what humanity is all about. But we cannot present the Vedas here without presenting them in the correct (for Wikipedia) form. In the Western phrase, we do not cast pearls before swine, for they will not, cannot understand. More work is needed to aid understanding. For those that are willing. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per Fiddle Faddle/Tim.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fiddle Faddle/Tim. As a side note, talking about tin foil hats in this context should be blockable. --John (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any substantial problem here. It looks like Aditya soni is doing a pretty good job with the sources though a little more explanatory detail in some of the articles would be helpful. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
[2]: They are claiming in wikipedias tone that Einstein did poorly because he had a bad horoscope, and claims that anyone with this horoscope has "has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious". Please explain how this is a "pretty good job", Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

super strong support; unless those "opposing" actually pull their fingers out and hold this editor's hand through the process. However, I feel Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE, and it requires its competent editors to be editing competently rather than holding the hands of someone who cannot write a coherent sentence in the forlorn hope that something might be salvageable from the inevitable mess. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Barney, the editor seems to me to have written some very coherent sentences, right here, in this thread. Better, grammatically, than some of the comments from native English speakers on this page, and certainly better than I could do in a language that may not be native to me. Sure, there are problems with English in some of the articles - it's complex content, with difficult translation issues, I'm sure, and it seems it may need someone to help him work through those issues (if he's still willing). It's probably important that he stops adding new articles until that can be worked through, to keep things manageable. Seems we may need someone who is familiar with the subject matter, and that's obviously not you or me. Maybe nobody will come forward to do that. If they do, I suggest it's not up to you or me to tell them how they should volunteer their time. Speaking of which - I thank Aditya soni for the substantial time he has so far donated in an attempt to create and share this content, and I hope we can help clear up any issues. Begoontalk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sort of "ban" at this stage, for clarity, per my comments above, in case anyone is "!counting". (Sad reflection on us, in my very humble opinion, that we leap straight into a "ban" vote after one line of non discussion, then try to hold the discussion we should have already had within the !vote. I hope I'm never subjected to that, and I suspect we all hope that for ourselves.) Begoontalk 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment, Just to clarify - nobody is proposing a 'permaban'. Nobody is proposing to wholesale delete 160 articles which are obviously the result of hard work and research. Some of us are asking this editor to cool it, and respect the norms of notability and sourcing on Wikipedia. I note that at least four of Aditya soni's recently created articles on Hindu Astrology are all subject to AFCs for broadly the same set of reasons: Incomprehensible articles on ultra-niche that are loaded with WP:OR and rely on unreliable occult/esoteric sources. This editor has not yet pledged to do anything differently even in light of the considerable attention criticism in AFD discussions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Observation: Today I was glad to note that an esteemed editor had approached one page i.e.Rasasvada, with the intention of improving it. But just see what he has done. He has deleted the entire section – "Obstacles to Samadhi and their removal", in which part I have cited Sanskrit passages from Vedantasara that provide definition of the term – "Rasasvada" – in the context of Advaita Vedanta and are the basic reason as to why I decided to create this page. The editor in good faith has extracted the very heart from the body of this essay and killed it. The reason he gives is that the passage is original research based on ancient source. Three drawbacks are evident – 1) the editor does not know Sanskrit language, 2) he does not know who Sadananda was, and 3) he has never read the work of Sadananda titled Vedantasara belonging to mid-15th century, which systemizes Sankara’s Advaita philosophy. Since then, this work has been translated and commented upon by many learned savants. I chose to cite from the translation and commentary by Swami Nikhilananda which was first published in 1931 and which translation and commentary is available online, the reprint I possess is of a recent date. I have conducted no original research.Aditya soni (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
UserAditya soni, I believe that you are acting in good faith, hence any bans or threats of bans may be unwarranted in your case. I have reviewed your older articles and found some of your work on Hinduism and Buddhism in general to be of good quality and potentially useful. I remain concerned about recently created articles such as Trikasthanas (astrology) which as I have previously stated are incomprehensible and fail to articulate any kind of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. None of the sources I was able to verify appear to be particularly important or reliable. None of the sources I could verify seem to deal with the subject matter in any significant depth. The reason I am pointing this out is not to criticize your scholarship, but to encourage you to apply your considerable intellect to an appreciation of Wikipedia's rules. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • support I have mixed feelings about this, but I think in the end something has to be done about in the form of review and guidance. To some degree my issues with the Hindu terminology articles can be ascribed to my lack of familiarity with the material, but I also get the impression that a lot of what I'm reading is slight paraphrasing of near-to-primary source material. It's rather as if our articles on Judaica were constructed from reworded passages of the gemara. It's not an appropriate approach to a general interest encyclopedia. The astrology articles are worse, bordering on incoherency. I've said over and over again that we need people who know the material to write these Indian articles, but the articles need to be actually readable too. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I was still weighing this one up and believed the editor in question could turn over a new leaf until this comment which is just completely at odds with how WP works and suggest the editor just doesn't get it. An editor has no place here if they refuse to participate in discussion, especially about their own problematic editing. Stlwart111 00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Friends, I have already stated that I chose Wikipedia to share, with all those who are willing to know, the knowledge that I had fortunately gained through the intensive study of numerous scriptures and texts, guided by a Guru. For more than two long years I waited and kept on waiting for some good soul to turn up so as to help me improve and expand the contents I had posted. No one turned up. You will agree that most editors who are so very vocal in professing extension of aid, guidance etc., when they do appear on the scene come out with all their guns blazing, firing at will all ammunition that are in their possession ranging from code, technicality, procedure and so forth, in such a discouraging and insulting manner that persons like me who mean no offence are made to feel - "Why have I entered the dangerously dark abyss called Wikipedia, only to be unceremoniously driven out?" At least one really concerned editor ought to have long ago, or even recently, in a polite and purposeful manner pointed out my mistakes and volunteered to help and guide me; then he and I could have happily re-worked and re-written the 160 odd articles bringing them up to the set norms and standards. I would have been only too pleased to do so. But, now too much water has flowed down underneath the bridge, the bridge has collapsed, I have exhausted my patience, there is a very bitter taste in my mouth which I am unable to wash out, and I find my heart bleeding and genuinely crying out goading me to quit Wikipedia the soonest. I am being asked to turn a new leaf; I have failed to understand what is meant by this phrase. I have not rebelled. But, enough is enough. Please, for God’s sake, stop the farce which is being played out at my expense. I was here not to win praise and stars, and later become an Administrator, but all the same I have a feeling someone is being a sadist. I thank you all for allowing me to share my feelings. Be good and help the needy. Allow me to take leave. I had never had an opportunity to meet so many on a single stage; it has been a great learning experience. I have vowed not to create any new page ever.Aditya soni (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support purely for lack of a better alternative. If somebody were to offer to mentor this user, or some such, I would be far better satisfied than with a tban. Essentially, to me the user is eminently competent, but unable to distinguish between what they know and what the general reader can be expected to know; their articles are written for others like themselves. This is also borne out by the lack of wikilinks in their articles. This also raises an unusual sort of NPOV issue; though the articles may be written neutrally, their lack of context, or WP:INUNIVERSE if you will, make them harmful, because the vast majority of readers are not familiar enough with these topics to judge for themselves. To me their English is a trivial concern, and not a factor in voting "support;" there are armies of editors out there with far poorer English. Aditya soni, whichever way this turns out, I suggest you do not take this personally; take this as a break in which you can familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. A Block is not infinite; it can be appealed, and if you can show that you've addressed these issues it will likely be overturned. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It is clear to me that Aditya soni is highly knowledgeable on the topic, but needs to familiarize himself with WP guidelines. A break from creation and a focus on article improvement would be great. However, by the bitter tone of his reply, I am concerned that a tban like this might make him leave WP altogether, which would be pretty bad, as we would be losing an editor with great knowledge on a niche topic. However, I do not see any good alternative. Changed my mind based on discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Kingsindian (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia does not come out of this with glory. As Wikipedians we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor and are causing them grief, a lot of grief.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way they have approached the creation of articles, they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive. They simply failed to engage with us in the way we expect usually. We must not have tried hard enough.
Now, we are voting on whether they should be allowed to continue. That appalls me.
Patently, they have a great deal to offer. And, equally patently, we are driving them away.
This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory. It seems pretty mainstream to me. The folk there needed the help of an admin, though I am wholly unsure why that was. This type of issue can almost always be handled by experienced editors without invoking the bucket and mop, but here we are, at the big ban hammer board, voting on how much hammer to use.
I am ashamed of our behaviour towards Aditya soni, and feel he deserves an apology, one I am giving him on my own behalf for any hurt I may have inflicted on him myself.
We need to guide him, yes. He needs to be content to accept guidance, yes. Requesting him to use WP:AFC for his next couple of drafts may well be a good idea. Mandating him to do so is not. This whole process is very WP:BITE, and we need to correct this now. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor", he has been editing consistently for 2 years and has made nearly 1,700 article edits in that time. That's not new or inexperienced. "they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive" By doing what they did, they have created a large amount of work for others to fix it by trimming down fringe claims and removing non-notable articles. I brought up the issue of fringe claims with them over a year ago [3], and they didn't even respond to me. Further, they acknowledge that their articles are only of interest to fellow astrologers [4][5], that's pretty much categorically in the face of WP:FRIND. If only astrologers are interested, then there are no independent sources and it's not notable (WP:NFRINGE). You also said, "This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory" I take it then you don't understand what a fringe theory is in wikipedia. A fringe theory is something which conflicts with an accepted domain of knowledge but which has no following amongst experts. For astrology that is science. Hindu astrology is fringe for the same reason that creation science is fringe (and creationism is used as an example in WP:FRINGE). Although they have many adherents, in terms of the relevant discipline (science) they have almost no following. "It seems pretty mainstream to me." No doubt there are some indian scientists who believe it (since it is wound up with religious beliefs in India), but science doesn't obey borders. The mainstream in science doesn't accept astrology, and the subset of that in India doesn't either from what I have read of it. Second Quantization (talk)
  • Oppose. [Non-administrator opinion.] I have not examined every article created by Aditya soni but I have extreme difficulty making sense of many of those I did read. I think it is fair to assume from the responses of others that I am not the only one. I reject the assertion that this is simply due to ethnocentrism, or as another editor has suggested elsewhere, a discussion of “my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery”. While I have little experiencing studying the major writings of any religion, including Christianity, I am still able to comprehend articles that touch on obscure topics of a wide variety of religions with much greater ease that this group of articles. The fact that this issue was raised in WP:FTN is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether Hindu astrology is a fringe theory or not. I would have the same opinion if this was brought up in WP:FOOTY. With that said, I oppose a topic ban on Aditya soni. It is apparent from his/her edit history that this general topic is his/her only area of interest within Wikipedia, and a topic ban would ensure that we would loose him/her as an editor. As problematic as I find these articles and as much as I would like to see him/her attempt to work with others, I do not see any history of objectionable behavior (e.g. edit warring to prevent others from trying to fix the articles) that would warrant that action. Location (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
One way in which the issue of whether Hindu Astrology is a fringe theory is very much relevant is with regard to the four articles currently at AfD where editors have raised WP:NFRINGE as a policy reason to delete them, among other reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal house system (Hindu astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue here appears to be whether or not Aditya soni can put together articles - regardless of the topic - that are reliably sourced and somewhat easily comprehended. Location (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we concentrate on one article? Trikasthanas (astrology), mentioned above, doesn't seem at all to match what a Wikipedia article should be. It looks more like something I'd find in a book that takes astrology seriously, or on an astrology website. Is this what we want? Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: I am not sure what you mean by that. You mean the decision should be based primarily on one article? If so, I disagree. If not, as Salimfadhley, who has spent much more time than me on this says, there are many contributions, especially older ones, which are decent, and should be considered as well. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: That's good to hear. I'm not saying base it all on one article, I am asking if we want this one and if it is in any way typical. What do you think of it? Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Too much detail, very dense, impenetrable to people not familiar with the subject. Probably should be deleted, but I am very inexperienced in such matters. Definitely large sections should be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from creating articles directly in article space. This seems to me very much the kind of thing the Articles for creation review process was created for. If the user creates articles via that process only, it'll be an advantage both for Wikipedia and for themselves. However, in view of the user's goodbye post above, I suppose the issue may be moot. But if they should change their mind about leaving, I do believe we need to insist they use the AFC process. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
No, we don't need to insist on anything here. This does not even begin to rise to the level you are suggesting. I understand this is your opinion, and I will respect that, but Fiddle Faddle has this correct. We are not really trying very hard and I think a good deal of this is because some editors just don't understand the subjects and don't feel compelled to collaborate. I think that we need more patience with editors. I see no reason for admin intervention or community sanctions here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I previously voted support and now continue to support this. Aditya soni is clearly an expert in certain aspects of Hindu culture but feels that this expertise provides an entitlement to disregard some of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This editor resigned in protest not just because of this discussion but because of the numerous AFDs and the growing consensus that his recent Astrology articles were not up to the standards of wikipedia 1, 2, 3. Aditya soni has never conceded that any of the criticisms of these articles were valid and his refused to make use of AFC (and other processes designed to assist new editors). Now faced with a possibility of mild and temporary editorial review Aditya Soni has resigned in disgust. In the immortal words of Cartman: "Screw You, I'm Going Home!". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for those words, which serve to escalate an unpleasant situation. As experienced editors our role is not only to create and edit articles but to provide a place where the less experienced can grow and become more valuable. I am thanking you for the Cartman quote, in case you are in any doubt.
People have driven away an editor whose understanding of the somewhat arcane topic appears to be great, but who is not quite working in a collegiate manner. I have read a number of the articles. They are difficult to understand. So is particle physics. They are not well referenced. Often, nor is particle physics, in that each has references from within the universe in which the topic exists. So what? We, the self styled great and good, are meant to be capable of editing the arcane and impenetrable to make it available to the ordinary reader. What we have said and are continuing to say to this editor is "Betake yourself and your topic that is difficult to understand, and go!" We disguise that as some sort of topic ban. Go us!
The wisdom of crowds often creates something far more unpleasant, and I believe we have seen it here. We have a posse and lunch law here. Yes, 'lunch', because we will have this editor for lunch.
The adult approach is to put this to bed as an understood but unwise proposal which will not be implemented, and to attempt to salvage something from the mess - we need to try to salvage this editor's feelings. I'm sorry that I asked them to come here and comment. As you see on their talk page they feel savaged the more by having done so.
For clarity, I have never met them before this, and never read their work. I joined this discussion because I felt then and feel now that this is a grave injustice being perpetrated on an ordinary person, someone like you and like me. I remain ashamed of us for doing this.
Are we not meant to guide and encourage the less collegiate editor, the less experienced editor? Or do we throw them under the bus when we don;t quite 'get' what they are trying to do? Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I disagree strongly with Timtrent that we are seeing articles created that are simply written by someone who understands the subject but writes articles that are difficult to understand and need better referencing. They are in fact articles which have Wikipedia stating in its own voice that astrology is an objective fact. The author even says as much at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) - " But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination; it has a restraining and at times destructive effect." Now he has the right to believe this all to be true, but not to create articles in which Wikipedia itself is asserting these things to be true. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia presents many things as facts. A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc. If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. We use the Edit button and make judicious edits. We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI. If we did that we would have very few editors left and the WP:AFC backlog would go up tenfold at a stroke. Not all articles are excellent. That is why we edit as a community. We don't chuck them away unless and until they are shown to be hopeless cases. We certainly do not throw their creator under a bus.
If we are very lucky we may be able to salvage the editor as a contributor for years to come, but I do not blame him at all for being extremely upset with the way he is being treated. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc." Presenting hypotheses as fact? Name one and I'll show you an article which needs to be edited. Also, I suggest you read Evolution as fact and theory before implying the word theory mean "not facts at all". "If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. ... We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI" Actually, this happens all the time, because it is a massive drain on everything to chase civil POV pushers around fixing their edits (and that's even if they don't just edit war back). Second Quantization (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this guy clearly knows his stuff. He needs some help fitting it into our way of doing things, but this is exactly the sort of material we could do with more of. I'm disgusted at the behaviour of those who want it gone because they don't understand, it's foreign, it's arcane or whatever. I know a little about this sort of stuff, and while it's very hard to get into, especially on a sleepy afternoon after lunch when I listened to a chap explain this area for a week, it's valid within the limits of the subject. We shouldn't be presenting it as fact, but we shouldn't be deleting this very real scholarship. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Pete,I wish you had made your appearance earlier. I have stepped in mainly because of you. Whatever be the opinion of the people in the Western world about astrology as a pseudo-science or a hoax or a non-sense, but you know that Astrology has been a part of Hindu life and culture for the past 4000 years or so, and it still continues to play an important role in our life. Even those Indian skeptics who vehemently speak and write against astrology, in fact, secretly approach priest-astrologers in the time of need. I can vouch for this fact because I am in this field though not as a professional. After the introduction of British method of education by Macaulay, who divided the world into the educated and the barbarians, the longstanding Indian method of thinking changed; everything ancient was questioned and even rejected, which situation worsened because of the influence of Karl Marx. Hindu astrology also took a severe hit and the number of those rejecting it as a science grew larger and larger, and also because of the support extended by the then political establishment. The vexing question, whether astrology is a science or not, was finally settled by the Supreme Court of India which court on 05/05/2004 ruled that astrology is a science, and even directed the Indian Universities to teach this subject. This judgement was delivered in the Case No. Appeal (civil) 5886 of 2002 P.M.Bhargava & Others. Vs. University Grants Commission and Another. You can access the court order at Govt. of India website - I am sure you are aware of this court ruling which is now the law of the land. Please enlighten all participants especially those who are against Hindu astrology and eager to bury my four articles already listed as AFDs. You have read the Indian Sanskrit texts. Our ancient thinkers did not use many words, they were very brief while defining and explaining the various astrological and philosophical principles. The later translators and commentators were in no position to change that method of expression lest the true meaning became lost. Hence, the language appears arcane and difficult to understand. I have not digressed from the available and referred to texts. This is it. My objecting friends should have directly asked me to re-write and if possible simplify what I had presented all that which is now under their scrutiny. They did not and you know the rest. They have driven me out.Aditya soni (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, am glad to see that you have chosen to reengage. I found the reasoning of the Madras High Court (quoted approvingly in the decision linked) particularly apt for an encyclopedia: it had "held that the very purpose of imparting education is to gain knowledge and therefore there should be every scope for making a study on very many subjects in order to enrich ones craving for knowledge. Any such attempt from any quarters in furtherance of that pursuit should not be stultified. The learned Judge further held that it was for the pupil concerned to select any particular field or subject in furtherance of his future career, and merely because the subject has got its basis or origin traceable to some cult, it cannot be held that the same would only result in propagation of a particular religion." I, for one, believe that your articles can be edited so as present knowledge more neutrally and not necessarily only result in propagation of a particular religion. (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say that I have read the ancient Sanskrit texts. I have a shallow understanding of the arrangement of the Vedas, the Upanishads and so on. It is a rich and deep subject! I can barely read Sanskrit, and puzzling out meaning with the help of Monier-Williams is a slow task. Though very enjoyable. Max Muller is another sage I revere, and when I next visit Oxford I am charged with visiting him at Holywell.
Despite what the court in Madras says, we cannot present astrology here as fact or science. We can certainly describe it for those who do, giving the sources and rewriting to make it less impenetrable, in line with Wikipedia's policies. We already present many arcane fields. Particle physics is mentioned above, but we also cover Harry Potter and Karl Marx in great detail. There is certainly room for the Vedas here, and your contributions are welcome, at least from those who have an inkling of what you're talking about. For many others, it comes across as nonsense, and I understand their confusion, though cannot support their behaviour towards a scholar. Obviously the wisdom of Advaita is yet to blossom in their hearts.
It is obvious that you are a scholar, and one who knows his texts. I can help edit your work here in line with policy, if you'll accept my feeble understanding of your field. Quite likely there are others here with better knowledge of both Sanskrit and Vedic tradition who can join in. Some of the advice given above is very good, such as the suggestion that you cease creating new articles until we have dealt with those already here by rewording them in line with Wikipedia policy. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposal is too broad. AlanS (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've actually read some (non-Wiki) articles on Vedic (Hindu) astrology, and the long-winded and often dire articles that this user is writing sound like they come from the Middle Ages. I believe they are not only inappropriate, too long, and a detriment to Wikipedia, I believe they are actually misleading in terms of the belief system they purport to represent. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What an excellent idea. Let us ban every editor whose writing quality is poor, or whose style we do not agree with, from creating new articles. Far better to ban them than to educate them, because it saves so much trouble. And, even better than that, it isn't WP:BITE at all, if we say it isn't. Alternatively we can edit the articles we think are substandard. I thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I never said that the writing quality is poor or that I disagreed with the style. I said the articles are misleading. Do we want an encyclopedia to be misleading? If you think so, fine, but I disagree; I think an encyclopedia should be accurate and up-to-date. Softlavender (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Yesterday, I asked User:Aditya soni, if willing, to make some changes to one or two articles so that Hindu beliefs were represented as beliefs rather than as universal truths. [6]. Today, I note that User:Aditya soni has done just that. [7] and [8]. Even if one is not entirely satisfied with the results, I hope we can all agree that this is strong evidence of a willingness to work collaboratively. (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I was invited to ANI for a third opinion. The concepts the user writes on are "real" concepts (not WP:FRINGE) in Hindu astrology. That said; many of them do not warrant an independent article, but however need to mentioned in the master article. Trikasthanas (astrology) IMO should be merged with Bhāva and retained as a para or 2. The articles created by the user are primarily based on WP:PRIMARY sources, thus may be coloured by the author's perception (Read WP:OR). Articles like Devatas (Vedanta) seem to be WP:POVFORKs of the master article (in this case, Rigvedic deities or Deva (Hinduism)).Redtigerxyz Talk 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Dear Mr. Redtigerxyz Talk ,I had seen the page Deva (Hinduism), but I did not know where to incorporate my written matter posted at Devatas (Vedanta), therefore, I created a new page owing to inexperience. But,I have not done any original research nor relied on primary sources -
Ref 1 Raj Pruthi’s book – Vedic Civilization is not a primary source; it is a secondary source on the topic. The entire book is available on line.
Ref 2 The book - Sree Varaha mihira’s Bhirat Jataka is not a primary source; it is translation cum commentary by B.Suryanarain Rao, and a secondary source. The entire book is available on line.
Ref 3, 5,6 Swami Gambhirananda’s book on Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya is a tertiary source; this is Swami Gambhirananda’s translation and commentary on the Sanskrit translation of Brahma Sutras by Adi Shankara. The entire book can be accessed at
Ref 7 The book – New Perspectives on Advaita Vedanta is not a primary source; it is a secondary/tertiary source. The entire book is available on line.
Ref 8 The book – A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy, as the title suggests is a masterly survey of the Upanishads conducted by Ramachandra Dattatrya Ranade.
Ref 9 The book- Patanjali Yoga Sutras contains the original Sanskrit text along with English translation by Swami Prabhavananda. It is a secondary source. The entire book can be accessed at
Ref 10 The book – Eight Upanishads Vol.1 contains original text of Isa, Kena, Katha and Taittiriya Upanishads along with English translation and commentary by Swami Gambhirananda.
Ref 11 The book – Studies in Upanishads as the name itself suggests is a tertiary source.
By the way I have already sought deletion of all 160 odd pages created by me. Therefore, I request you to please quietly delete all pages without inviting or involving others, then, there will not be any kind of aspersions cast on my understanding of the subject, my ability, my sincerity and my integrity. And, by deleting all articles your precious time and effort would also be saved. I hope you will not disappoint me. I seek forgiveness from all you for having created so many thoughtless pages and thus carelessly bothered you all. I have deleted my user page but I do not know how to quit Wikipedia entirely (including disabling of my password i.e. access to any page), please help me. Also, please close this discussion too, which has needlessly gone on and on. I am glad you have also supported a ban on me. You may collectively ban me for ever, I won't be bothering you in future, never in any case. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Continual fringe claims in all created articles (all with terrible sourcing too),[9]: "Generally, a person born with Reka yoga has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious"." Albert Einstein was born with a Rekā yoga which made him perform poorly in his studies during the course of the dashas (planetary periods) the planets giving rise to the said yoga." That's a claim in the wikipedia voice that planet positions made Einstein do badly in school.
[10]: "King George III born on 4th June 1738 with Unmaad yoga inasmuch as in his case Mars occupying the 10th house aspected the lagna and the Moon combining with Saturn casted its inimical aspect on Mars; he suffered from mental illness." Of course this sentence doesn't seem to make much sense since the second part seems unrelated to the first, but I think it's obvious what is being implied here.
[11]: " These are the three evil houses of suffering whose lords and occupation invariably bring difficulties, suffering, loss, anxieties, worries, obstacles, disease, confinement, incarceration, impediments, enemies, lawsuits, accidents, injuries, surgeries, and death like experiences in the lives of all human beings." "From the 6th house are divined diseases, disappointments, ..." "The 12th house indicates disturbance to sleep, mental worry, ... ", "The lord of the 6th house should not be stronger than the lord of the lagna if so then one cannot overpower opponents and foes, and is vanquished illness and ill-health will overpower the body. " This is the Viparita Raja yoga that confers learning, longevity, fame and prosperity, illustrious friends, success in all ventures and victory over foes."
People seem resistant to the idea that poor writers shouldn't write 160 articles laden with a fringe POV, but I think it makes sense. Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
And I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, I did even ask him to be wary of our polices over a year ago: User_talk:Aditya_soni#Fringe_guidelines (old nick), Second Quantization (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, reluctantly. I have hesitated over this due to the ideas already eloquently expressed by Timtrent/FiddleFaddle. However, can we really afford to have hundreds of articles which are poorly written, dense, and in universe, presenting astrology as fact? Who will go and clean them up? Who will monitor and fix every new page?
I wouldn't support this if the articles were just badly written, but writing astrology as factual in Wikipedia's own voice is a massive POV and FRINGE problem and I just can't support its continuation. BethNaught (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I had intended skipping this dispute, but Reka yoga (astrology) is an abuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Mahadeva states that the person born with Reka yoga is devoid of education and wealth and has bad nails - Oh come now! When feeling threatened, Squirtle withdraw their limbs into their brown-orange shells and spray water from their mouth with great force. Where's the difference? We list and describe all sorts of stuff that is patent nonsense, so long as there is a significant cultural following. Pokemon, astrology, synchronised swimming. We are an encyclopaedia, not some slitty-eyed moral judge. --Pete (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Friends, I need not disturb you but I cannot avoid narrating to you my day's experience. Only today I noticed the reasons given by the editor who has nominated page titled – Char Dham (Vedic) for deletion. His intention suits me fine, but he has very sadly termed this topic as original research and a hoax because he could not find a reliable source that indicates Char Dham exists in Vedic literature. That hurt me. He seems to have not appreciated the contents of section – Pratardana’s description of the four Dhams in which section two significant Mantras from the Rig Veda i.e. IX.96.18 and IX.96.19 referred to by two authors, have been cited along with the explanations by those authors. Evidently this nominator does not know Sanskrit and Hindi but even then I have led him to Rig Veda Vol. 5 pages 335,336 published online by Aryasamaj Jamnagar which is actually Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s translation of the Rig Veda and his commentary on that text. The word Dham (धाम) in Vedic philosophy refers to plane of existence. In order to assist him so that he properly understands this topic I have specifically brought to his notice the words – "तृतीयं धाम" at the start of the second line of mantra IX.96.18 on page 335 which is explained by Dayananda Saraswati on page 336 as – (तृतीयं, धाम) (pronounced - triteeyam dhaam; triteeyam means 'three') (three dhams) are देवयान (Devayana or Devaloka) और (and) पितृयान (Pitriyana) इन दोनों से पृथक् (beyond these two) is the तीसरा (third) जो (which) मुक्तिधाम (Muktidham) है (is); and to the two words – "तुरीयं धाम" (pronounced - tureeyam dhaam; tureeyam or Turiya means 'the fourth') appearing in the next mantra on the same page. Dayananda Saraswati explains - (तुरीयम्) चौथा (fourth) (धाम) (dham) परमपद (the highest state) परमात्मा (Paramatman) है (is). The link to this text is . These two mantras of the Rig Veda directly speak about the Char (four) Dhams (planes of existence), and these are the mantras I have cited. I have failed to understand as to how the nominator missed noticing these mantras. I am not objecting to the proposed deletion of this page. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the nom, but you are writing articles on the basis of original research. You are working off the primary texts, and primary religious sources (which are themselves quite old). See WP:NOR and WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Engaging in an original or interesting synthesis isn't a bad thing, it's just something that is forbidden in wikipedia, Second Quantization (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure that we're getting original research? The texts are old, but there are extensive commentaries. I'm getting the feeling that all of the material is well-sourced. The problem could be that the average contributor to ANI is sadly deficient in Sanskrit, let alone Vedic lore. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Pete has the right of it. Old commentary is not original research. Referring to Dayananda Saraswati's interpretations of Rigveda is no more original research than referring to Augustine of Hippo's and Thomas Aquinas's interpretations of scripture in Just war theory. (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The question is how we refer to it. So long as we are clear on that, there is no problem describing any belief system. Hell, if we could have a reliable source for what bunny rabbits actually believe, that would be awesome, and a great addition to our pool of knowledge. In this case we think the articles may be over detailed, badly worded, implying fact instead of description of a belief, and maybe misleading, because of that. The question is what we do about that. We can fix them, discard them because they are too misleading, too voluminous and too hard to fix, engage productively with the author, berate the author (and accept the risk of losing them, or even consider that a positive), or any number of things inbetween. Nobody ever said this encyclopedia thing would be easy. We edit, we discuss. Sometimes we reject. Sometimes we can adapt and include. As long as we consider these things properly, we are doing our "job". Begoontalk 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Pete, Since I am the one who nominated this article. Dayananda Saraswati DOES NOT classify this an independent concept in his commentary. I have read the Hindi commentary. Dayananda just uses the term dham in his translation. The article plays with WP:SYTH. The whole article is a WP:HOAX product of WP:OR. That said, the author has created articles which are not hoaxes (eg Equal house system (Hindu astrology)).--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you nominating yourself for mentor? Second Quantization (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would if I weren't inexperienced myself. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support ban from creating new articles in article space on a temporary basis. Redtigerz has said above that Hindu astrology is significantly notable and from what I've seen in reference works I have to agree that there could reasonably be a fairly wide selection of articles on the topic. There do seem to be some real questions regarding the editor's capacity to adhere to NPOV in content right now but a good mentor might be able to help there. I can try in the near future to help a little in that regard and would be willing to be a secondary advisor once I become a bit better informed on the topic in a few weeks but think that for the moment anyway it would be in his and our best interests to ensure his created articles are a bit better from the word go. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The material about the India Supreme Court ruling on whether the Vedas are a science is exactly the sort of thing that should go into the encyclopedia, if it can be sourced. But over a hundred articles? Can AFC handle that much? Maybe some of them could be moved to user space to work on them, until they can be approved. At least they wouldn't be lost. I know the milhist group sometimes does this. —Neotarf (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Supreme Court’s ruling is on Hindu astrology as a science.

Sepharial in his book - The Science of Foreknowledge (pages 58 – 70)(url= [12] ) concludes that the Hindus did not get their astrology from the Chaldeans or the Egyptians; the astrological methods of the Hindus are essentially and fundamentally different from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, the zodiac is not related to the equinox, the Hindus are aware of the precession of the equinox, and the calculation of periods is based on 27 nakshatras reckoned from the place of the Moon at birth; the Chaldean directions based on diurnal aspects of the planets after birth have no place in Hindu astrology and the Hindus do not use the time-measures such as "one day for a year" method of directing used by the Chaldeans and the Babylonians. Hindu astrology like the Hindu astronomy evolved originally, the trine is the basis of Hindu astrology. Chaldean astrology did not have its birth in India, but astrology existed in India more than 2000 years before the Chaldeans.

We, in india, believe that Jyotisha or Astrology is as old as the Vedas which embody eternal knowledge. Jyotisha forms the most important of the six Vedangas or the body-organs of the Vedas; it is the scientific study and application of the language of the heavenly bodies determined on the basis of astronomy and mathematics. It is a cosmic science not bound by limitations of a laboratory. Astrology did not come to India after the advent of Alexander, references to astrology are found in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. All ancient texts of Hindu astrology are in Sanskrit covering a very wide scope and variety of principles, permutations and combinations of planetary positions; Hindu astrology is a very complex multi-dimensional system and therefore, any criticism of this system should be made by one who has studied this system.

Even so when will this inquisition stop? Do I find it interesting? No. Do I find it entertaining? No. On the contrary it recalls to my mind an Urdu sh’er from Mirza Ghalib’s ghazal which reads:

آگے آتی تھی حالِ دل پہ ہنسی : اب کسی بات پر نہیں آتی :

which means – "Previously I could laugh at my heart’s plight, but now I do not laugh at all".Aditya soni (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aditya. Let me reply to some of your comments:
  • the astrological methods of the Hindus are essentially and fundamentally different from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians - There are plenty similarities between Chaldean and Hindu astrology, although no one knows who borrowed from whom. Both cultures divide the circle into 12 and 360 (the basis of modern angle system).
  • The astrology found in the Vedas is not horary (ie it is not based on birth charts). Horashastra was influenced by the Greeks, as the Yavanajataka itself says. Natal astrology was found in Ramayana and Mahabharata because they were edited several times, and the final version came only during the Gupta period, long after the Hellenistic period.
  • I cant help but notice how you keep on referring to astrology as 'science'. Astrology may be a knowledge system, a branch of study, but it is not a science because it does not use the scientific method. No one is against representing astrology in this encyclopedia, but ultimately you cant claim in WP's voice that astrology is scientific. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Offer I dunno about being a good mentor, but I'd be happy to work with Aditya soni if nobody with more knowledge of the subject can be found. I think we should put anything problematical into user space, work on it there, and push it into mainspace when we're happy with it. I don't think anything good is going to come out of more ANI discussion - most of the regulars here, bless their hearts, have no knowledge or interest in the Vedas. --Pete (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it appears to comprise two distinct issues. First is "he uses dense language" which is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, although Wikipedia also has many articles written in purple prose as well. That is a good reason for editing articles to make them more readable, but not a strong reason for anything else. The second issue is the perennial "religion/science/fringe" trichotomy. My suggestion is that articles on religion be clearly marked as relating to religion, and not being in the "science" category in the first place -- thus stopping the never-ending battle about placing "fringe theory" on each clearly religious topic. We should be able to trust that readers can understand that an article properly labeled in a "religious category" is not about "science". Collect (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dear Pete (talk), the issue is not the Vedas but my articles on Hindu astrology. Permit me to give a brief but essential explanation.

All created things transform, this is one of the many salient aspects of Truth. But then, Truth itself is very difficult to apprehend. Before coming face to face with Truth, which is present everywhere equally, we are asked by our ancient seers to give up righteousness and unrighteousness, we are asked to discard what we think is real and that we think is unreal, and we are also asked to discard that by which these two are meant to be discarded. Man is certainly not instinctively drawn towards Fate even though he is more aware of death. All knowledge including Astrology gained through experience and study reflects man’s attempt to understand the purpose of his own being and all else connected therewith, as also to know what determines Fate.

Our ancients who had propounded the principles of prediction were conversant with the science of astrophysics and possessed a high level of inferential ability; they were able to draw inferences with astounding results from what they observed in the ordinary course. They knew that revelation requires a human agency for its own manifestation and they also knew that knowledge can be more dangerous than ignorance. Therefore, leaving no scope for doubt and economizing on words, they evolved the method of simply defining the basic and the most advanced principles of prediction and described various yogas (planetary combinations) along with their results avoiding repetition and without offering explanations. All Sanskrit texts on Hindu astrology exhibit this particular methodology. Astrology is man’s effort to understand Time; it begins from the stage when a firm grip over the various principles of Astronomy and mathematics has been achieved.

Astrology is intended for prediction, and prediction itself depends on the Rising Ascendant or the Lagna and the other positions of the planets, which positions involve astronomical calculations. Thus, Hindu astrology consists of Ganitha, the mathematical part, and Phalita, the predictive part, and is more a science of tendencies which assumes that planets influence the activity of man and hence, his destiny. Hindu astrology actually speaks of the fruits of Poorvapunya (the results of the karmas of previous births). Since all events are believed to re-occur in a pre-determinable manner, therefore, astrology is said to be the study of man’s response to stimuli, and that planets simply offer a lawful channel for the outward operation of cause-effect equilibriums each man has set in motion in the past. Prediction is broadly based on the strength, nature, aspect and combination of planets, on the qualities and the strength of the rasis (signs) and bhavas (houses) owned, occupied and aspected by the planets, and on the influence of the yogas. Hindu astrology basically requires the discerning eye to be able to identify the yogas and then apply the prescribed results judicially in accordance with the established principles.

The ancient Sanskrit texts are the primary source, the translations and commentaries on these texts are the secondary source, and texts that explain the application of principles with the aid of live examples are the tertiary source. The translators, the commentators and the later teachers and practitioners have retained the expression of the original texts because the original expression, which is treated as a statement of fact, cannot be changed. For example, Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita, tells us that if either Saturn or Venus or both are devoid of strength, occupy the trikasthanas (the 6th, the 8th or the 12th house) or are in association with the lords of those trikasthanas or own the trikasthanas then during their dasha (planetary-period) they will prove auspicious, and if one owns an auspicious bhava and the other an auspicious bhava then they will prove all the more auspicious. This statement is an observation given as a principle; it cannot be changed by us. This can be tested only through experience because observations do not depend upon specifications alone, and qualitative analysis does not depend on the quality of the sample in hand but on its natural order.

My friends have found my way of writing and the presentation of various principles to be unreadable and violating certain Wikipedia norms. This is so mainly because they had never before encountered such things, they have no inkling of Hindu astrology, they do not understand the mechanics involved; they do not respect the sanctity of ancient Hindu scriptures; they do not know Sanskrit and are also not aware of the importance of brevity. In my articles I have remained faithful to the Sanskrit texts and commentators who have presented the principles etc., as statements of fact. I cannot change their language or mode of expression to suit the critics of Hindu astrology who do not even know Hindu astrology. Nowhere have I given my own opinion or conducted any kind of research. I have not violated any Wikipedia’s norms. If you know Hindu astrology well please do improve these articles, but in case you also find this task difficult (as I have found) then why burden the unprepared editors and readers with information which is beyond their ordinary understanding notwithstanding the fact that there are more persons visiting the pages on Hindu astrology than on the Upanishads and the Vedas.

You find me here because of your notification and because I am eager to know how this discussion ends. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You have apparently taken the texts of the old Sanskrit works at authoritative and by wikipedia policies and guidelines as per WP:FRINGE and related pages we cannot. I suggest you read that page and other policy and guideline pages which relate to the broad topic of pseudoscience which is one of the fields all forms of astrology fall into. Also, it might help if you more clearly demonstrated an understanding of the fact that wikipedia is intended to be read and useful for general readers not specialists. There are other WMF entities which are more suitable for more in–depth discussion of topics which cannot be achieved in wikipedia given or particuar policies and guidelines. You have already received one generous offer above to help you better work within the existing wikipedia structre and I think it would be in your best interests to take it. I am willing to offer what assistance I can too. But you do apparently have some mistaken assmuptions about the depth and width of coverage wikipedia gives any topics and those mistaken assumptions seem to be causing you some probems here.John Carter (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the intricacies of the subject. I don't know - or have much interest in - Hindu astrology per se. Few here do. But it can be presented as lore in the same way that we present other arcana. I accept that the primary texts are beyond modification and that the laws governing the movements of planets and their supposed influences are likewise fixed. Such is the nature of Prakṛti. But in the Wikipedia world, we cannot couch our descriptions as absolute fact. We may perhaps quote recognised scholars in their opinions, but they must be presented as opinions, not eternal truth. It is a matter of presentation.
There is no doubt that Hindu astrology is notable enough to be included here, given the vast number of followers. We are a broad church and there is room in Wikipedia for all manner of arcana. You will find details of every episode of Gilligan's Island, for example, and we are positively devoted to football. These topics have their own saints, and fanatics who religiously chronicle the important trivia. Hindu astrology can be presented in these terms - a collection of articles and subarticles on a subject area with a wide following.
The typical Wikipedia editor, especially those with their minds aligned on this page, has little knowledge or interest in the subject, is quite unfamiliar with Sanskrit, let alone the Devanagari characters currently used to present it. The Vedic scriptures might as well have been composed by space aliens, for all the impact they have on the consciousness of the typical wikiperson. Hence their description of a subject familiar to hundreds of millions of human beings as "fringe". They know no better, but here is not the place to educate them.
We can work together, probably find others with an interest in the project, and massage the information into acceptable wikiformat. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
But Pete, one by one, the editors who have participated in this discussion, have started deleting the pages created by me. Some have even defaced a few with large uncalled for tags. Shortly, there will be no article for John Carter, you and me to re-work. All problems thus stand resolved. I thank you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Pete: I am all for it. I will be back on wiki after a 3-day break starting now. I am not very familiar to the topic like Aditya, but quite interested. @Aditya soni: Meanwhile, please read some of my thoughts on the comment you made above. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Created over 150 articles and they have got sources. Primary or secondary, he has been creating many articles having multiple sources to show. User:Ad Orientem has made a good opinion, Aditya Soni must only add only those information that are not Wikipedia:FRINGE, if he wants to add FRINGE he must also add the refutation. Remember that both FRINGE and Refutation requires a Reliable source. Aditya Soni must follow these simple guidelines and there will be no complaints. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I went thru several edits, as well as the RFC, what convinces me the most is the point put out by Timtrent and Bladesmulti. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I had previously supported a topic ban (above) based on the editor's apparent unwillingness to engage in discussion. That was, by no means, a demand that he engage with me in particular. Engaging with other editors is sufficient. I'm encouraged by Pete's apparent willingness to get involved. If he is confident that this can be resolved without a topic ban then I'll withdraw my support for said topic ban. Stlwart111 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a failure of communication. I'm lucky enough to have a small understanding of where he's coming from, but for most of the regulars here, he might as well be writing articles in Sanskrit. A pity, because he knows his material well, and if we can get him to accept our ways of doing things, we'd be blessed with good, well-sourced articles on a subject we are light on. On that note, some of the articles he's created have been deleted. Fair enough, that's process, but it would be good to have the article text moved into his userspace so the work is not completely lost and it can be worked on until (if) it meets our standards. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What I saw was a failure to communicate but if he is willing to "accept our ways of doing things" (which includes collegial discussion) then yes, the contribution is worthwhile. I'm no longer convinced a topic ban is the best way to resolve the issues raised. Stlwart111 10:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Benjamin Wey[edit]

The above IP, claiming to be the article's subject issued this threat at Talk:Benjamin Wey yesterday. For background (and other threats by related editors) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyndasim. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for 2 weeks. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn again[edit]

This is mostly asking for review of my actions, rather than asking for sanctions, etc. On Talk:Zoe Quinn I've just twice reverted a proposal for a new section in the article that discusses Quinn's ongoing harassment. I've reverted because some of the sources (Reddit, Talking Ship) look dubious, and the allegations made against Quinn in the post are serious. The post has been restored by Titanium Dragon and Tutelary, however. Do others think this was a reasonable move on my part, or is this more me being a BLP zealot? Opinions from uninvolved editors are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My view on this is that it qualifies under the exception of WP:BLPTALK since it was a proposed section, and directly dealing with content in the article. They were proposing for text to be put into the article. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Moreso, how can we reach consensus on how to cover the material if every single discussion about it has been revdeleted? Tutelary (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Discuss without BLP violations? Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As somebody who has recently gotten involved with making edits on the article, I feel like there should be discussion and a consensus regarding the addition of a section talking about the scandal per what Tutelary states above, including references to wherever the supposed violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP Moreover, I feel like it should be brought up that Zoe Quinn has had 36 deleted revisions since it's creation in May, and the majority of that seems to stem from issues with WP:BLP. A third opinion is desperately needed on this matter. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 00:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. You can't simply post BLP violations on a talk page though, it applies in all namespaces. Some of those sources are distinctly shaky (or are merely repeating from unreliable sources - putting "allegedly" on the front of a sentence doesn't miraculously make it not a BLP issue). I am also slightly concerned that the "scandal" is being inserted in the article gratuitously; here on Wikipedia would not be the first location on the Internet that efforts have been made to disparage the subject recently. Now, I could be wrong (its happened before), but I agree with Mr.Stradivarius that erring on the side of caution is always the best method. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But it's not erring on the side of caution. It's removing a whole post to start discussion on the talk page on how to best cover it, if cover it at all in the article. You can't be asked or forced to supply a citation for every single little thing that you're arguing while you're arguing with sources. Again, see BLPTALK, it was directly related to making content choices. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
And BLPTALK says "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot" - in other words, if you think something might not be BLP compliant, don't post the whole damn thing on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Since (I believe you're the one) who revdeleted it, how would you propose we discuss it then if we can't discuss it on the talk? Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be beyond clearly intelligent contributors to discuss the scope of a section without actually repeating BLP violations - and it should be fairly obvious what is and isn't one (I'm not saying the whole section was). Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, I want specifics on how we can discuss this--the potential content in the article on the talk page without it being deleted as a 'blp vio'. Please and thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That particular sentence from BLPTALK has been discussed somewhere else recently. It's an unfortunate and misguided statement. More important, it's in direct conflict with the overarching mandate that BLP applies to all pages. If it were true, you could say almost whatever you wanted on a talk page as long as it was in the context of a "content choice". That is an absurd and unacceptable result.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's so that when discussing somewhat new content, it doesn't get all deleted as a 'blp vio' when it's important to get something right in the article, which is what was attempting to happen; get it right in the article. I wouldn't even say I support a new section detailing what happened, I just feel like it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk. Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In this particular case, some of the text posted in the article and talk page contained serious BLP violations. It may have appeared well sourced, but it was presenting some highly negative claims as facts, in spite of questionable origins, along with some incorrect claims that are not supported by the sources. Perhaps some of the issues need to be discussed, but that text wasn't the way to do it. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Black Kite, no mention is being made at all as to what information is or is not the violation. There's no means to collaborate and iron out. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It should be fairly obvious which part is problematic, though. As Bilby says above, presenting negative claims by third parties as facts is not something we can allow. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement of "We need a third opinion on all the revdels" is faulty because they're already coming from multiple parties. There's already multiple opinions present stating that these are flagrant BLP violations. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The only things which are claimed as facts in the section in question are the things which we have significant external confirmation of. The word "accused" is used re: her ex's accusations, while things which are stated as facts are things which are independently verifiable and not in contention. Indeed, we have confirmation of a romantic relationship between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson because Kotaku commented on it starting after the article he wrote about Zoe Quinn in defense of Grayson and their reporting. We have several sources which have noted the claims re: Joshua Boggs, and the fact that he hired her is not in contention. Literally everything else after the first paragraph has been independently confirmed as it is on the open internet and has been reported by a huge number of sources, and there is absolutely no way that we can report on the controversy - which has, at this point, over 72,000 results on Google for Zoe Quinn sex scandal alone, and which has been reported on or commented on in numerous sources, including Slate, Kotaku, Bright Side of News, New Media Rockstars, Daily Beast, Gamesnosh, Motherboard, Gamer Headlines, Talking Ship, Game Revolution, and Daily Dot. That's ignoring the various other folks who have commented on it, including TotalBiscuit and InternetAristocrat, the latter of whom now has several videos on the subject matter, one of which has north of 750,000 views. The entire reason that Zoe Quinn has gotten coverage is precisely because of the controversies she has been embroiled in, and her notability is pretty much entirely contingent upon these controversies - and notably, per the standards people are claiming above, if we are complaining about single sources here, it is worth remembering that Zoe Quinn's claims of harassment ultimately come from her.
Thus, I see one of two possibilities: either this article needs to be deleted, or this article needs to include the controversy. And it is impossible to include the controversy without noting what the controversy is and what caused it. Given that people have said that this article should be preserved, then it needs to include the controversy, and to do that it must mention what the controversy is about - accusations of nepotism and improper relationships because of romantic relationships she had with people who gave her positive press coverage or hired her to work for them. There is no getting around this. Wikipedia has reported on sex scandals and affairs upon many occasions in BLPs, including Ted Haggard and in the various articles about Princess Diana and Prince Charles, and I really don't see how this is special or different. We have reliable sources which have made these allegations, the fact that they are (largely, but not entirely, as there is some independent confirmation in some cases) based on the account of an unhappy ex should definitely be noted, but it does not prevent us from making note of it - if a politician's wife left him and claimed he had been cheating on her with five women, we would report on that not because of the wife, but because of the reliable sources who would repeat the wife's story and make it into a story. We have reported on all sorts of cases where we do not know all of the specifics, such as about the shooting of Michael Brown, but that does not prevent us from noting what was said about the shooting or what was claimed about the shooting in numerous reliable sources.
The proposed section is not out of line with the sort of accusations which are seen elsewhere, and it needs to be worded carefully, but I think I succeeded at that, and if not, we can work to make it better. And mentioning the cause of the scandal is absolutely necessary to talk about the rest of it - the accusations of nepotism and corruption, the censorship of posts, a voluntary media blackout on the part of many gaming sites, Kotaku's own response to the matter wherein they confirmed that Zoe Quinn was in fact in a romantic relationship with one of their reporters and denied that it was improper because the article he wrote for Kotaku about Zoe Quinn was penned before the relationship began, fights over media corruption, the other game jam she supposedly attacked... and all of this, all of this, is a matter of public record, because it is still available to be seen or has been documented by various folks, and the reliable sources have documented the issues involved. This clearly does not fall under WP:GOSSIP because we can confirm all of this actually happened. The specifics of the affairs we have reliable sources talking about allegations and accusations, though in one case (Grayson) it has been outright confirmed by his employer, so we should word those things as being accusations and allegations - and they aren't just a whisper campaign either seeing as they do, in fact, have actual evidence of the content in question, and in some cases actually link to it in the articles.
I do understand the issues involved with slander and libel but the reality is that this stuff has been reported on by reliable sources per Wikipedia standards, there have been a number of reliable sources which have written articles about the subject matter, it has a bunch of non-reliable source attention, and it is something which, assuming Zoe Quinn is notable, is what makes her notable, given that the material associated with Zoe Quinn pretty much always mentions the controversies she has been embroiled in. If we are worried about NPOV, that's fine, and we can work on the wording. But BLP clearly allows reporting on sex scandals, provided that they are reliably sourced, because we have done this several times before and have numerous BLPs with sex scandals mentioned in them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Literally everything else after the first paragraph has been independently confirmed as it is on the open internet - and therefore it must be true - and has been reported by a huge number of sources - and how many of them are reliable sources? Being 'on the open Internet' does not mean it is suitable for Wikipedia. Verifiability, not truth through reliable, third-party, fact-checked sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Every one of them - including the ones in the first paragraph - are reliably sourced. Which you would know if they didn't keep deleting it. Every single one of them. Note that list of reliable sources? "Slate, Kotaku, Bright Side of News, New Media Rockstars, Daily Beast, Gamesnosh, Motherboard, Gamer Headlines, Talking Ship, Game Revolution, and Daily Dot". Those are all used as sources. All of them have reported on the scandal. Every inch of it can be reliably sourced. Everything from the second paragraph on down - the reaction to it, the further allegations of another game jam being attacked, the censoring of posts on reddit, the YouTube video pulldown, the media blackout from several gaming websites, GamesNosh's host arguing with them about keeping up an article about it, and Zoe Quinn's response - all are documented in reliable sources. Every statement made can be sourced in reliable sources. Ergo, the whole argument seems silly to me - we're arguing BLP, but there's no question that this has been reported on, and we have covered other sex scandals in BLPs, and a great deal of it isn't even about the sex scandal itself, but accusations of nepotism and corruption which resulted from her "private" relationships with people who had given her a job and given her positive press became public. Given that these sources all pass RS, I again have to question what the problem is. People are complaining but refusing to even state what they're complaining about. When the text is put up to try and mold into an article for consensus, it is unilaterally deleted rather than amended, and then they complain when the article is changed without consensus despite deleting any attempts to create consensus in the talk page. It is obstructing our ability to improve the article and it is unacceptable, and is clearly a misinterprestation of WP:BLP as was noted above. The sources in question have editorial staff, they aren't personal blogs; Slate and Kotaku are both fairly prominent websites, and the rest all still meet RS standards.
You're not assuming good faith. Please do so in the future; I know what I'm doing. It is just a bit frustrating when every attempt to improve the article is blocked and discussion on the matter prevented. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)\
Please explain what in the wide, wide world of sports any of that has to do with Zoe Quinn. And ensure that all of those alleged connections are sourced to something more than "some guy said this on 4chan" or "I read it on a YouTube comment page." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Slate article you cite calls the accusations "a dirty-laundry double load of drama-laden chats." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of them as suitable for repetition in an encyclopedic format. I believe the current wording is adequate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Slate is a biased source; it is not unreasonable to use biased sources, and biased sources can be reliable sources. sources need not be unbiased. But you have to take care in what you use them for; in this case, they're being used for a specific purpose where their bias is irrelevant, namely A) noting the press/feminist reaction to the scandal and B) noting that the scandal exists in the first place and the fundamental, basic facts of it (or at least some of them), which are also repeated in other, less biased reliable sources. You can write an article using biased sources, you just need to take care that you don't allow THEIR bias to creep into Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, Slate isn't "a biased source", which is exactly the point. Slate is a generally-accepted high-quality source, and that source states that the accusations are little more than tabloid trash. We don't republish tabloid trash in the encyclopedia. Hence, if the reliable sources in this matter are calling it tabloid trash, we are well-advised to leave it out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There are concerns of neutrality in the coverage of the incident that were raised in the talk page, and these deletions does not address the problem. It's true that BLP applies to talk pages, but Tutelary is right that BLP explicitly allows discussing controversial content there in a general way when it's sourced, letting us to include such claims once; a shotgun approach of "delete everything " even from article history is not the way to protect the neutrality of the article nor the privacy of the person - the reliable sources covering the event in depth are too numerous and varied to simply hide the whole thing just because some aspects of it are gossip and should be left out. Several RSs (including those supportive of Quinn, even the Slate article you found reliable) have linked the episode to ongoing discussion in news sources about the problems of video gaming press as a young medium, in particular with respect to the previous Doritos-gate incident; leaving that side of the story completely out is a problem with WP:BALANCE, as that point of view should be covered in proportion to its due weight as covered by the references. Diego (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Except that at that point, you're basically using this article as a coatrack to discuss alleged problems in gaming journalism. Which isn't going to fly. Zoe Quinn's article is not the place to have a substantive discussion of various claims about video game journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not something that you should decide, that judgement should be made by reliable sources like the Slate article. So far, the professional journalists covering the event have decided that the topic is connected to that discussion, and the article should mimic that coverage in the adequate proportion, without editors deciding that one of the points of view expressed and extensively talked by those journalists should be excised. Diego (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's something we decide. We can decide that something is so thinly and tangentially connected to another thing that significant discussion of it really belongs elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
When the Slate writes something like "We need to stop focusing on her and focus on the journalists. ... We need to not make this about Zoe... I read many comments like this, and they are absolutely right", it's clear that talking about journalism is not making the article a coatrack. At this point, what you're advocating is that we censor information from the article that you found reliable ten minutes ago just because you disagree with it. Diego (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the Slate piece is literally making the argument I'm making - that the issue relates to games journalism, not to Zoe Quinn's life.
More to the point, Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything ever written anywhere and editorial judgment is not censorship. We make decisions about what to include and what not to include all the time. Crying "censorship" is the weakest of all possible arguments for a piece of information, because it means you can't come up with any more compelling reason to include it. We are editors and yes, that means we make judgments about content inclusion and exclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I made that argument because I had already made the strongest possible argument -that the journalism connection is covered by multiple sources from a variety of points of view- and you ignored it. Editorial judgement is made by consensus from several editors through calm discussion, not by editors single-handedly deciding that linking to sources in order to evaluate them is a policy violation and blowing up large parts of the discussion, which is discouraged both by talk page guidelines and BLP policy (which recommends substituting them with a link to previous discussion, not revdeleting the whole thing). I think this conversation is a good candidate for mediation, given that the way this discussion is being held is way beyond the desirable properties of talking about content and the reliability of each particular reference for each particular claim. Diego (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Moreover, if some content is excluded for editorial discretion, it wouldn't justify rev-deleting it as it wouldn't be a BLP violation but merely editors agreeing that it's not relevant to the topic. Diego (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It relates to Zoe Quinn because Zoe Quinn is involved in this particular instance of dubious behavior by the press and industry; the fact that it blew up so much is because of her personal hypocrisy, long-standing objections to nepotism and corruption in the gaming press, and issues of biased reporting on gender equality issues in gaming - but that's irrelevant, because it DID blow up and she was involved and her name is all over it. Zoe Quinn is only notable for this and another incident of claimed harassment and counter-claims of nepotism. If you feel that Zoe Quinn is not notable, that's fine, but these incidents are all that is notable about her, and given that attempts at deleting the article have failed, it appears that there is consensus that the various scandals she has been involved in are sufficient for notability. It is not being used as a coatrack in the article, as the whole proposed section directly involves her and her associates and the aftermath of this particular incident. The goal is to document the scandal, not to use it as a prop for going after the video game industry. We cover scandals on Wikipedia all the time without significant issue; this should be no different. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon:, I suggest that you tone down your posts and in particular that you withhold your personal opinions against Quinn - it's not helping in any way to discuss the thing, it's irrelevant to the discussion, and it's giving reasons to the people who are using extreme editing techniques to prevent reasoned debate. The best thing you can do is limit your posts to neutral claims that have appeared in the sources you want to use, avoiding any kind of judgement of Quinn or the Wikipedia editors, so that we can evaluate each claim on its own merits. I suggest that all editors do the same around here. Diego (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Diego:, I apologize. I'm just a bit frustrated because I'm trying to improve the article and discussion keeps getting shut down and people assume I am out to get them. What bothers me the most about this is that a great deal of the reason that people have gotten so upset about this is because of perceptions of censorship. I felt that the proposed section was fairly neutrally worded and would have been more than happy for people to find things that they felt were bad or wrong and remove or fix them, but instead the whole thing keeps getting deleted, preventing people from even giving much feedback on it - I had a discussion with a couple people about it earlier and it was fairly productive, and then some folks rolled in and deleted it and deleted even the revisions and the discussion to prevent anyone from seeing it and working on it, while refusing to say what their specific issue was so that it could be hashed out and improved or fixed or even removed if a given sentence could not be adequately sourced. And this is precisely the sort of thing which has gotten people incensed - I was told by a friend who hangs out on 4chan that someone there even made a post earlier today calling out censorship on the Wikipedia article, and goodness knows we don't need to get a bunch of POV Warriors from /v/ involved. I want to write something which documents this, not some sort of hit job, and I'd love to work with people on it, but it is very hard when it keeps getting deleted without people suggesting how it might be improved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the sentiment. I had the change to briefly see your additions this morning before they were deleted, and from what I recall I found that some of it were BLP violations that couldn't be accepted, some of it were not neutral claims that would have had to be reworded, and it was too long to be considered as giving due weight to the topic within the biography; but overall it could have been used as the basis for and reshaped into a section which covered the reports from several sources in a neutral way.
I suggest that you start a new section at the talk page where you create a list of sourced facts that you believe should be included in the article, in a general way and with as little detail as possible. Keep each separate fact in its own line of a bulleted list, and add items to the list one edit at a time. This way, if we later decide by consensus that some of the claims are poorly sourced and thus a WP:BLP violation, an administratorany editor will be able to rev-delete only those problematic claims, leaving the rest of your post available to be discussed and archived. Diego (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Revdel needs to delete the offending revision and any revisions which subsequently contain the text. So if the BLP violations are in the first edit, the entire list still needs to be deleted, along with any subsequent discussion. Either way, it doesn't seem like a good approach to encourage posting BLP violations on the grounds that they then can be deleted later.
I should add that the problem isn't simply sourcing - yes, there were unreliable sources with the problematic text, but there were also sourced claims that were BLP violations, either because the source doesn't work to the same rules we do, or the source didn't contain them as written. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Bilby, the whole point is that (general, non-specific) content in a Talk page about a living person is not a BLP violation if it's referenced, as BLP allows that kind of content. If the claim in the talk page does not match what the reference says, or if there's previous consensus that the source is unreliable, then yes, it's outside what BLPTALK allows. But tell me, how could such consensus possibly be formed if the discussion is removed on sight, without other editors being given a chance to evaluate it for reliability? Diego (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but what you suggested was to post sourced "facts" for discussion, and use revdel if consensus is that they were BLP violations. That's simply not going to work. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the relevant policy, and in truth sourced facts are actually not subject to revdel. Only "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material" needs to be hidden from sight, but explicitly not to mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations; if those are found to be BLP violations, it's enough to remove them from the page with a regular edit and it's OK to leave them available at history. So I see no problem in posting factual claims that are backed up by references and later removing them if found problematic. You're right with respect to content that should be revdeleted, but that is not the kind of material that is being handled at this article and talk page. I've updated my previous post to reflect this new understanding of policy that wasn't clear for me. Diego (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in following your advice, Titanium Dragon has done exactly what I feared would happen, with more negative unsourced or poorly sourced claims about living people being posted. If we decide we need to revdel we'll need to kill the discussion as a whole, so it is probably better doing it earlier rather than later if it amounts to that. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I kind of did the reverse of this; I'll see about redoing it tomorrow when I'm less tired and cranky. Or maybe I'm lying and I'll do it tonight, who knows?
Regarding weight, I think a big part of the problem is that Zoe Quinn isn't actually especially notable; as I noted in the talk page for it, she's really only "notable" for three things, potentially: a brief burst of coverage when she claimed to be harassed, wherein pretty much all of the coverage ultimately derived from statements made by Quinn herself - harassment which may well not have actually occurred, as is presently alleged, which is precisely why we try to avoid such sourcing. A very small burst of coverage when the Game Jam she was involved in went down, and unfortunately one of the main articles about that was written by Grayson, which runs into conflict of interest problems (indeed, it is a part of the present scandal). And the present nonsense. She doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, which doesn't mean she isn't notable but does mean that she doesn't really have a whole lot to be said about her as a creator. "She made a game, had sex with a reporter, and got in fights on the internet" isn't much of a Wikipedia article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is the talk page for Zoe Quinn protected? I was interested in being a part of the discussion but an administrator set it to protected until September 13. Can this be undone? I don't understand the purpose of protecting a talk page, not an article itself. (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You can create an account an make a few constructive edits at other places for a few days - that will grant you autoconfirmed status, which will allow you to edit semi-protected pages. Meanwhile, if there's some comment you want to add to conversation, you can leave it at my talk page and I will post it in your behalf.
I have to say I agree with this IP request - page protection is a measure against extreme vandalism, but this is not what is going around the talk page. If there are BLP violations from IP editors, they can be by overseen and handled by the editors actively watching the talk page. Diego (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The page is semi-protected for good reason, as there is a significant history of IP harassment, trolling and sockpuppetry. That's what we do when that happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is? Where is that history documented? (honest question). Diego (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm an IP and I haven't harassed or sockpuppeted anybody. I haven't seen anyone else do this, either. Locking an entire talk page seems like a disproportionate reaction, when you can just deal with the problem editors individually. (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Come on, do some research. The protection log says a request was made at RFPP. I'm guessing there were a lot of bad IP edits the day the news broke, and it's been protected ever since. Check the edits made during that time of you're really that concerned. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it normal practice to semi-protect a talk page? (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
When the subject is a woman in the gaming industry who is on the receiving end of misogynist insults and harassment from angry male 18-35 gamers (a group that greatly overlaps with the Wikipedia crowd), the yea, unusual and extra page protection may be called for. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see anything like that on the talk page. Isn't it borderline uncivil to accuse editors of being misogynists? (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's because a lot of the worst offending comments have been deleted out of the page history. You literally can't see it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, thanks for the pointer. I've reviewed WP:RFPP's history and could only find this, but I couldn't find anything about protecting the talk page. Are you sure that point has been debated? It also doesn't mention anything about sock puppets. Diego (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If we can return to actually discussing the WP page, that Guardian article, like the majority of the mainstream coverage, doesn't refer to the harassment campaign as 'alleged', or 'reported' - it states unequivicolly that it happened. Wikipedia articles reflect the sources, not the opinions of editors, and as such the harassment needs to be described as having happened in the article.Euchrid (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Euchrid:, that very same point was already raised at the talk page, and the current wording is the result of consensus addressing it. Please read the previous talk, and you can discuss it there if you have some new argument. Diego (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing the forest for the trees[edit]

This situation brings up a more general problem. The BLP policy relies heavily on the idea that any negative or potentially controversial content about a living person must be referenced to a reliable source. However, it happens frequently with women in gaming (and women in politics) that BLP violations are committed by the reliable sources themselves. What then? I'm not sure this can be solved at ANI, but it's particularly relevant here... Bobby Tables (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It should go without telling, but external sources are not subject to Wikipedia's policy. The relevant policies in such case are WP:DUE WEIGHT and WP:NOTCENSORED: if the sources are indeed reliable, including their claims in the article in a neutral way would not be a violation of BLP policy because it allows for well-referenced content - it only forbids poorly referenced one. (If the reference is poorly written, it doesn't count as reliable. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).
This doesn't mean that the content need to be used, but it can be used to write the BLP article. Whether to include them in that case is then subject to editorial discretion, in the form of consensus between editors that the content is relevant to the topic and is given due weight with respect to the article's state. Diego (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Material should be simultaneously compliant with both BLP and WP:V. It's not one or the other. Sometimes generally reliable sources communicate material we think would be non-compliant with BLP policy. In that case we don't use it. (For instance, sometimes B-grade celebrities have the names of their kids mentioned in an RS; we usually wouldn't use it. The WP:BLP1E is another example of the principle where BLP policy discourages the use of material even when it shows up in a reliable source). "Being in a reliable source" isn't enough by itself, although it's required for what we do decide to put in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
'Intrepreting' a source is not something we should be doing (and is, in fact against policy). If a source is reliable, it's reliable and, therefore, meets BLP; if it isn't, it doesn't. How much of the source is used is not a issue of the source complying with BLP or not. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Being "reliable" according to WP:V does not mean a source automatically meets other policies like WP:BLP or WP:NPOV for everything it says. That's clear from general practice and explicitly written in the policies themselves. It's not "if reliable, then must be fine with BLP in every case". We can't interpret the material to say something it didn't say, but of course we have to interpret whether we find a source reliable or whether we find material from a source policy compliant.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


ANI is not a venue for complaining about perceived unpleasantness and non-controversial alternate accounts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:35, 3 September 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.

Is being uncivil and keeps reverting my edits and calls me a sock puppet; BlaccCrab and Scorpion0422 can vouch that STATicVapor has been unpleasant. Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're at 4RR. That doesn't bode well for you. Good luck. --Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Harmony-n-Beatz, you will need to provide diffs(links to the edits that back up your claims) as evidence before this can be processed much further, if you need help adding diffs to this report please see here for guidance. Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

- [14][15][16][17] Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note. Harmony-n-Beatz had not notified STATicVapor of this case on his talk page. I have left a message to make sure he's been notified. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged Harmony-n-Beatz's page as a suspected sock by looks of it the other confirmed ones have been checkuser'd. Probably best if everyone leaves the article well alone in the meantime to make everyone else job a bit easier. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked Harmony-n-Beatz for the edit warring and as a probable sock and have requested checkuser assistance at the SPI case page. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I have not been impressed with the way the user has handled criticism. My contact with him was non-existent until today when I noticed he reverted this edit. Now, the IP in question was being rude in the summary and I can see why someone might think he was a vandal. But, his edit was completely in the right. And Static reverted him. One of my absolute pet peeves is autopatrol users who don't make sure that what they are reverting is vandalism. To me they are as bad as vandals because they should be trustable but their lack of caution leads to vandalism being re-added.

Anyway, I informed Static of this and I assumed he would either not respond or promise to be more careful. I was done with the issue and ready to move on. Instead, he went on the defensive, deciding to attack me rather than acknowledge that he made a mistake. There have been more responses, but I think you get the picture. This will probably be dismissed because of the sock allegations, and I can't speak for this editor's long term habits, but from my short-term impressions, the above users aren't that wrong. It would probably be worthwhile to investigate his behavior and habits a little bit more thoroughly. -- Scorpion0422 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see that as an "attack," especially given the condescending tone of your initial comment to STaticVapor. "Warrior" may not be the individual's birthname, but it was their legal name, so without reading the fine print at the top of the table, it's an understandable oversight. That has little to do with this report otherwise, which I suspect will be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the user even did that much. He probably just saw the profanity and decided to revert. The IPs edit summary says "His birth name is NOT Warrior", so if Static had put even a second of thought into this, he would have realized, "Wait a second... How could someone's birth name be 'Warrior'?" and a quick investigation would have confirmed the accuracy of the edit. People keep getting lost in the red herrings here. My argument is simple: 10 seconds of investigation would have avoided this. This is unacceptable and the fact that the user is not addressing the real issue doesn't help things. True, this doesn't have much to do with the report (though I was asked to comment) but I think it does prove that the user shouldn't be outright dismissed. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith goes a long way, if you choose to not to, that is your problem. I have known for a long time that his legal name is Warrior, I do not read the page regularly so the fact that we were listing the birth name was easily missed, since when he was inducted his legal name was Warrior. You are complaining over one little revert, calling it unacceptable is just a blatant misappropriation. If anyone should be under discussion, it would be you, for your original uncivil message, followed by your personal attack filled one. STATic message me! 22:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If I can add my two penny's worth; STATicVapor is in fact a sockpuppet who has used both STATicVapor and STATicVerseatide (see [[talk:X (Chris Brown album)# "Pop Star"|on here, I even agreeded with STATicVerseatides' comment); I try to get on with users and I know this'll sound petty but when I first signed up, I started to work on creating Dina Rae a article and I just submitted my edit to the now disfunct page "The Dina Rae Show" and saw that STATicVapor had requested to have The Dina Rae Show deleted saying it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines (of course it wouldn't have 10 minutes after it was made, you need to wait awhile to see if there was any action on it); I'm not saying "They're evil for doing that" but I had also editted X's article where it stated Chris Brown said the music would be more soul and R&B and not totally pop, so I included R&B, soul, hip hop (3/5 singles released were hip hop so I included that) and pop and I got a message from STATicVapor on my talk page saying my edit was disrubted and I could be blocked, when I hadn't been a member long, so I do think that STATicVapor comes across hostile and a bit you can edit anything on Wikipedia but apart from anything I've edited as your edits are not welcome in their atittude. Thought I'd comment Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Linked accounts, like both static's are not sock puppetry as per here. Murry1975 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 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.
Not even alternative accounts, I changed my user name less than a year ago. STATic message me! 15:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass copyright violation[edit]

Mohammad Waleed (talk · contribs) is single purpose account engaged in mass copyright violation, and is adding images of people who have no connection to Pashtun people in that article. In other words, he's giving people ethnicity based on his own assumption.[18] This is very disruptive, I think indef block is appropriate. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright image issues are dealt with and the user warned but you need to discuss your assumption that he is making assumptions with him before raising it here. Nthep (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)[edit]

Hi, the original thread got archived, so for convenience I've copied the postings from the original thread to here again. Hopefully that's the right thing to do.
Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing++ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing++ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to address Cailil's point above - it should be seen that there has been evidence of positive attitudinal change and development, specifically research and creation of articles, and avoiding gnoming. To address Black Kite - Cailil specifically stated that discussions on any issues was still fine and my Topic Ban did not forbid any discussions on any topics. I was never a confrontational editor to begin with, and I always discussed changes and been courteous to those that engaged on various topics. I think its fair to say that the deep-rooted issue was my insistence on an exact definition of "British Isles" in articles, with references to show that it was being used within the references. Other areas, involving an "exact defintion and usage", were also highlighted by Cailil even though these topics did not fall under the Topic Ban, but I understood what was being said. I don't believe there's any need for the Topic Ban to remain in place any longer as I've shown I understand the reasons why it was in place, and I've addressed those editing habits at the root of the problem. -- HighKing++ 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that it fell off with only dissenting opinion meant the request failed. No need to repost the panda ₯’ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me that there were only dissenting opinions, apologies for reposting if that is the case. I saw that editors had posted some observations and questions, and it seemed to me that it "fell off" due to a lack of activity. -- HighKing++ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support lifting of topic ban. I'm impressed that you've not gone the sock/evasion route & have thus respected your top ban. If the community chooses to lift the TB, I would recommend less attention to the topic-in-question, in future. I don't wann seeya getting blocked or worst. :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you GoodDay. As I've said above, I believe I've addressed the behaviour that was at the root of the problem, and have shown to the community that I've learned. -- HighKing++ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've confidence in you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support lifting with the appropriate ROPE. Happy to give a second or third chance. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies - I assume ROPE is some further probation period? Is there somewhere you can point me? -- HighKing++ 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
HighKing, see WP:ROPE. It's not so much a rope as it is a leash... Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No Support A leopard never changes its spots. Highking has been banned in the past and as soon as a ban is lifted returns to previous behaviour. To recount that Highking was never sanctioned for sockpuppetry while operating under his 2nd account - User:Popaice. No support. Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Calil states, a lack of problematic editing since simply proves that the topic ban works. My experience from working on problematic areas affected by nationalist POV is that editors do not change; topic bans expire and the same editing patterns re-emerge. HighKing can be a productive editor in other areas of Wikipedia if they wish, but I don't believe allowing them to return to the whole "British Isles" combat arena would be a productive outcome. Number 57 10:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
On that basis, is it true to say that you wouldn't agree to a Topic Ban ever being overturned? Harsh. No chance then for an editor to show they have the ability to learn from mistakes, or show that they've recognized their problematic behaviour? -- HighKing++ 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
In areas with bad POV problems like this, I think lifetime topic bans are the most effective way of cleaning them up. As I alluded to above, I have edited around the edges of another area with some awful issues, and I haven't seen topic ban work as a temporary solution - the problematic editors return when it expires with exactly the same viewpoint - sometimes they are more subtle in their POV after their ban, but the POV remains. The issue for me is the desire to return to a topic area in which the banned editors clearly have a strong POV, and I don't believe it is a positive move to allow this. Number 57 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Some background: I edited a lot of articles that in my opinion (at the time), used the term "British Isles" incorrectly. We attempted to create rules for usage and formed WP:BISE and discussed edits among interested editors. That initiative eventually failed, and led to the discovery of a large sock farm (still active today). I wasn't ever editing from a "nationalistic" point of view, but from a (misguided) attempt to enforce a standard definition across lots of articles. Cailil correctly pointed this out (took a while for me to grasp, but I see it now), and also pointed out that this was the root of problems caused by gnoming in other areas. Enforcing definitions (especially of controversial terms) where definitions are not "exact" in the real world, was the problem. I don't believe the Topic Ban is serving any useful purpose any longer - it is "working" not because it is in effect, but because I've learned and cut out the problematic behaviour (and learned too). I don't believe any editor would say I'm a POV warrior (exceptions made for the sock farm obviously), or that I even have strong nationalistic POVs. It's less of a desire to "return" to a topic area, and more of a desire to rejoin the community as a fully-fledged and trusted editor, without a shadow of a Topic Ban hanging over my edits, and being able to show that editors do learn, and do change for the good. -- HighKing++ 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ha! This made me laugh. In truth, Highking systematically went page to page removing the term "British Isles" and at an unreplicable speed. I think a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry are reasons enough to decline this request.Dubs boy (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this editor had chosen to edit in an other way then things would be different, however on the editor's own admission, editing has just been reduced so things are not different. It sounds like the editor is mainly interested in editing in the problematic way. Maybe it would help if the editor indicated the kind of constructive edits that he wishes to make but cannot due to the topic ban. Op47 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Op47 - just in the interests of transparency and completeness, No, that's not what I said. Yes, my editting has been reduced, but I stated that it is mainly due to cutting out the problematic "gnoming", and partially because I'm not as active as I was before. You appear to attribute the "reduction" as involuntary, and therefore nothing has changed. Not true. 80+% of the reduction is my choice, because the gnoming is the underlying problem. And in terms of "different" editting patterns - I have also researched and created a couple of new articles and working on another. But you've asked one important question - "what kind of constructive edits I wish to make but cannot due to the Topic Ban". I'm not going to blow smoke. The honest answer ... I've nothing in mind. Keeping the Topic Ban in place wouldn't affect my editing .... but would and does affect my "standing" in the community. -- HighKing++ 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the topic ban is lifted simply for "time served" reasons, HighKing will likely return to the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. This, in turn, will attract more disruptive socking to counter his edits. Déjà vu. I think that HighKing should not be allowed any wiggle room to muck about with the "British Isles" phrase at all, ever, as it will only lead to disruption (major headaches). The restriction is not an albatross around his neck. It is a safeguard against disruption. I have no doubt that the stalkers that watch his every edit will come out of the woodwork the second the restriction was lifted and he made a "BI" edit. Not worth the trouble. Doc talk 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc - to be honest, I kinda agree with you. The only point I would highlight is that I'm being heavily penalized (in my opinion) for the actions (past and potential future) of the sock (who's already attempting to disrupt this discussion). I recognize that the community can't afford to invest the time, energy and resources into every petty event, and I also recognize that the community has no appetite for anything to do with the phrase "British Isles", regardless of whether any edits are actually right or wrong. As you say, and I agree, the disruption isn't worth it. You say I'm likely to return to the same behaviour. I'm saying the opposite and I'm asking the community to trust me. You say it is not an albatross around my neck. Well .. I think it is because it's a sign that the community doesn't trust that I can behave appropriately. And it's going to be impossible for me to demonstrate that the leaf has been turned without a little trust from the community. I don't know what more I can do. -- HighKing++ 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello :) I have to agree with Cailil above when he says "...showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted". I see no reason to remove the ban because I know the background on this. It's not a "penalty" on you. It's there to "prevent" disruption, and it should remain in place to prevent disruption at large. Nothing personal. Doc talk 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi :-) I don't get that. How can it *not* be viewed as personal? It's a Topic Ban on me? I've said above that I recognize fully (and hopefully articulated the fact that I recognize fully) the behaviour that causes the problem. I'm asking that the community trusts me enough to lift the Topic Ban. You don't agree ... ergo you don't trust me. Kinda hard not to see it as personal.... I'm not whining or making excuses or blaming the sock or ranting. But I really don't see how the Topic Ban will ever be lifted at this rate ... which translates into the fact that I can never rejoin the trusted editors who operate without a Topic Ban. Victory to socking? Taking your logic one step further, if this Topic Ban extended to all editors, then it wouldn't be personal. But it doesn't. -- HighKing++ 11:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I was around when this whole thing started(well before the sanction were in place). The wording of the ban "is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly construed." seems reasonable considering this user was prolific in this content dispute. I think this ban has kept this user out of trouble. I think lifting the ban would be about the same as an invitation to start editing in this area which I think is a bad idea.
While I appreciate that this user has respected the ban I also think that this user returning to this topic would result in more trouble. I don't think it hangs over him like a cloud, we don't have a big banner on his userpage or anything. The only thing this ban is doing is keeping him out of an area that was problematic for him before. Chillum 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in part because the community seems increasingly more concerned about avoiding any 'disturbance in the force' than in creating content. It is absurd to contend that an editor cannot change. In this case any repetition would rapidly result in the ban being reimposed, possibly with greater sanction. When I started editing Wikipedia there would have been no question about time served being sufficient in this case. We are now being over precious. I speak here as a veteran on those disputes having to handle socks and ill will from both sides so I know the editors concerned through long practice. We also allowed GoodDay to edit again and he was as if not more disruptive on this issue. If it helps I'll happily agree to mentor (or monitor) his behaviour as I attempted to do for GoodDay. I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia in the main because I think it has shifted from using behaviour as an enabling constraint to one where for some admins its a governing constraint which they see as the primary purpose of the encyclopaedia as a whole. So the time I used to put in to monitoring controversial articles is available ----Snowded TALK 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


Is the problem the Topic, or my previous behaviour? I've stated I've no intention of ever returning to my previous behaviour. I've also articulated my understanding of what the problem was, and I've demonstrated that I can edit without gnoming while still being productive, and seen out the agreed review period without any violation. I'm getting the distinct impression from Chillum and Doc that the Topic Ban isn't really anything to do with my behaviour. Is there an elephant in the room? Nobody here is stating that they believe I'll return to my previous behaviour... but that the Topic Ban should still remain in place as it doesn't cause me any negative impact. I disagree, hence this request. -- HighKing++ 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the ban lifted so that you can continue to not edit in the area the topic ban prohibits you from editing? If that is the case then the ban is of no force or effect and you can just ignore it.
There is no banner on your user page, nothing to stigmatize you in regards to this ban. It might as well not exist if you are choosing not to edit in the whole "British Isles" area.
Unless you actually want to edit the subject of "British Isles" again then there is little point in removing the ban. It is the possibility of you returning to editing "British Isles" again that I object to.
You asking for this ban to be removed is essentially you asking for permission to edit the subject of "British Isles". I don't think that is a good idea. Chillum 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Your response pretty much sums up the problem. You're saying that the problem is editting the term "British Isles" - as far as I know, the Topic Ban is to address behaviour, not "protect" a term from being editted. I've summed up before above, but here's another attempt. Previously, I had maintained that the term was incorrectly used in some articles, and I had tried to nail down a definition, and nail down guidelines as to usage (the WP:BISE). That had failed (start of sock problems) but I continued to implement the half-agreed rules anyway - resulting in more disruption (height of sock problem). The problem was described that I was engaged in systematic editting of articles containing the term, and my edits resulting in the removal of the term without proper referencing. When my edits were scrutinized, most of my edits were correct. But - and this is the problem and the root of the behaviour issues - some were not and some were marginal. I think the marginal calls were the ones that gave me my Aha moment, and I started to understand the issue. In real-life, there isn't a single definition and it is often used loosely, and trying to apply a straight and narrow definition is always going to cause problems. I'm asking for the Topic Ban to be lifted because I've learned the lesson, articulated what lesson I've learned, addressed the problematic behaviour and demonstrated that I can behave without resorting to wiki-gnoming or any other of the behaviours that led to the Topic Ban. So yes, removing the Topic Ban would leave the way free for me to edit any topic including "British Isles". Just like every other trusted member of the community. I'm trusted with every other Topic. Bear in mind as I've stated above, I've no intention of seeking out any such edits involving British Isles, or resorting to any of the previous problematic behaviour. I won't seek out articles containing the term as I did previously, I'll simply edit normally as I've been doing. -- HighKing++ 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Dive into Highkings contributions history, pick any day and you'll find some instance of random IMOS application. Take 21st Feb 2013 as an example. Highking applied IMOS across 36 different articles and at 1 point applied IMOS across 20 pages in 16 minutes! Highking was not reading the articles nor was he attempting to find a context for the edit. It was mud slinging and seeing what sticks. How would he be able to gauge if an edit is correct if he doesn't even read the article? Take away the ban and his mask will slip. And a user with a history of socking is bound to have another sock account still active.Dubs boy (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when has this guy Murray been the arbiter of what can, and can't appear on these pages? He keeps reverting the above comment. He and his colleague Highking are both long term edit warriors. They revert a change and if its reverted back they leave it a while then try again. See Murray's activity on the War Memorial Gardens article for example. Neil Edgar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


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

User:Mac22203, a WP:SPA with no edits other than on the Centerplate article (concerning a food and beverage company), is intent on turning the article into a coatrack for negative material concerning an incident where the CEO of the company kicked a dog - an incident which clearly has nothing to do with the company's business concerns. Given that Mac22203 had repeatedly added grossly undue and non-neutral material on this incident, [19], and had refused to listen to the advice of contributors concerning the matter (see the article talk page and User talk:Mac22203) I removed the material entirely. Sadly, Mac22203 has chosen to edit-war over this, [20][21] despite being warned previously. Since it seems that Mac22203 is unwilling to comply, and is instead intent on abusing the article as a means to put the world to rights concerning the unfortunate dog, I would have to suggest that a block is necessary, at least until such time as Mac22203 accepts Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week per WP:EDITWAR. I've also left a reasonable offer on his talk page. I (or any other admin) can unblock him early if he pledges to use the article talk page, make his case, and build consensus rather than repeatedly try to add the same information over and over against consensus. As always, my admin actions are open for review, and if anyone thinks I incorrectly blocked this user, insofar as they should be allowed to continue their actions, feel free to unblock them and let them go about their business. --Jayron32 04:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Good work, Jayron32. DocumentError (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Unreasonably long block for a new user. Grump gave a one-sided explanation of the facts. New users did not have the opportunity to defend himself. I observed that New User made an attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies while Grump baited him into a revert-rule violation (a favorite tactic of long-time editors). Grump did not seek let alone receive concensus for removing all mention of the Des Hague scandal from the article. But yeah, good work.Brmull (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Um, what? How exactly does repeatedly adding material against a clear consensus 'comply with Wikipedia policies'? Mac22203 had been repeatedly advised to discuss this on the talk page - to which his sole response was to accuse all and sundry of 'bias' and 'censorship'. The simple facts of the matter are that 'man kicks dog' is unlikely to merit a Wikipedia article, and that accordingly an article on a business was being used as a coatrack to get the incident into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that User:Brmull isn't uninvolved here - and had in fact added further content [22] to a list of 'Venue Partners' that Mac22203 originally added to the article with a clear intent of advancing a boycott on the company.[23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Some minds "think alike", so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Good block. In addition to edit-warring, he also came close to making a legal threat. If the incident is widely known, it could merit maybe one sentence with citation. Otherwise, as you said, it's mostly about that guy, who currently has a redlink for an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it merits anything despite being very widely known in Canada due to the CBC carrying the story on the national news. It still has nothing to do with the company, just its (now ex-) CEO. --NellieBly (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If the CEO resigned over this, then that merits a one-line mention with a proper citation link. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 1 September 201