Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 4 April 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

India v. South Asia

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Misplaced Pages community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing , and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others , and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Zuggernaut, was not a part of the regular discussion on the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries page. He has an old gripe with me from the Talk:India page and was there in the "inventions and discoveries" discussion for only one purpose, and that was to oppose me. Unfortunately for him, he managed to confess said purpose in one of the rare posts he made on that page. Said he, crossing in the process the line between reality and fantasy several times:

"It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Misplaced Pages demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity ..."

This means, of course, that if I support/oppose something, Zuggernaut will naturally oppose/support it, on the logic that I am demonstrating my anti-India and pro-British bias. What "India vs. South Asia" has to do with it, beats me. If anything, "South Asia" is more American and international usage, Britain (still fondly remembering its Indian empire in the haze of an after dinner pipe and port) would likely go for "Indian." As for the real discussion that began on March 1, there were some regular discussants; these were: Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, SSeagal, Mdw0, Wikireader41, SpacemanSpiff, Mar4d. In this discussion, Zuggernaut made two appearances, both on March 1 (his first ones); once in a humorous vein and the other to (predictably) protest my tagging the article. He then disappeared for three weeks, while the regular discussants labored through all the permutations and combinations of words in the various proposed names. They considered stopping the "List of Indian inventions ..." at 1947, they considered Gunpowder Ma's proposal to create a new "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization," ... Predictably, Zuggernaut was absent from all those discussions. However, when I finally proposed a page move, Zuggernaut was the first one to register an "oppose," confessing, in the process, the real reason (quoted above) for his appearance.

He then canvassed. At first, in this somewhat provocatively worded post on the "Noticeboard of India related topics" in the hopes that putatively "Indian" editors there would naturally oppose a page move in which their beloved "India" was being deleted. When the editors there didn't bite, he appeared in this discussion, accompanied by music from the Twilight Zone, on the Talk:India page. His fellow conspiracy theorist there has meanwhile added an oppose vote as well, having been no part of the "India vs. South Asia" discussion.

Now for the page move and the votes. First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes—not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). In other words, we reasoned that the vote count among the regular discussants one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote.

Sadly, for Wikpedia there is now a type of editor, of which Zuggernaut is a good example, who spends his energies not in adding content (Zuggernaut has added precious little (read zero) to the "List of Indian invention and discoveries" page), or for that matter to the India page, but in holding forth every now and then on the deep ideological biases involved in the work of those who actually do add content, and in leaving no stone unturned in their path to help them trip. As the New York Times reported last year, a large proportion of Misplaced Pages editors left in 2010. I'm afraid that trend is only going to continue if Misplaced Pages doesn't stop a handful of disruptive editors from heeding the clarion call of their conspiracy theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut was mostly absent from and participated little in the discussion, realized too late that a consensus had crystallized and is now trying to undo community consensus via the noticeboard. I don't see any bad faith on the part of the users listed above, all has been only done after lengthy discussions taking over two weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Another tedious encounter with our modern-day Indian wiki-nationalists. Zuggernaut has arguably merited a page-ban for stalking Fowler - which is, self-admittedly, his entire reason for being there - and CarTick apparently lacks the ability to follow a coherent argument. Someone really needs to sort this out and deal with the issues of consensus-stacking, canvassing, harassment and disruption. Moreschi (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not Zuggernaut's first attempt at canvassing and will not be his last (there are at least two ANIs where this has been discussed), he has consistently used provocative language and posts to canvass his positions on WT:INB. The only reason he canvassed me (per Athenean's statement above) this time is because I had a mild disagreement with Fowler on this particular issue. I'm not entirely convinced that a name change is in order at the present time, although I can appreciate the arguments in favor. It's not a page ban that's needed but a topic ban that's required here. See the history on Talk:India where his proposal was rejected in September, then he comes back a few months later adding the same POV stuff in claiming that there was consensus in September, then in the face of complete opposition starts an RFC and keeps arguing the same points again and again. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't commented on the move discussion (and would oppose it actually), but this Zuggernaut Vs Fowler thing is getting a little bit out of hand. Though Fowler doesn't help things with his sharp remarks and pithy edit summaries, Zuggernaut's behaviour is getting tiresome - he has a pretty strong POV on this issue. He has even suggested that projects to distribute wikipedia articles offline in india, go through the contribution history of articles to check for "known editors who have a known POV issue". Read the whole thing - he is actually suggesting a "pre approved editor list" for india related wikipedia articles that are selected for distribution. It gives me the creeps. Apparently, if you are non-Indian and you dont agree with him, you dont count; and if you are an Indian and you dont agree with him you are a "Brown Sahib". --Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is time for a topic ban on zuggernaut. I have opposed the move proposal but it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of a proposal or on alternative titles when persistent POV pushers with an agenda are around. The persistent resurrection of topics that don't get consensus (see the Talk:India history pointed out by SpacemanSpiff above), the references to brown sabibs noted by Sodabottle (not, I am sorry to say, for the first time), the long list of acronyms in the complaint above, these are all examples of an editor with a single minded agenda to insert his own POV into wikipedia. I suggest a topic ban on all articles related to Indian history. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

let us not forget the English nationalist POV pushed by Fowler. His edits across wikipedia promoting British East India Company, attempts to forecefully define Indian history to have started from English intervention and his recent attempts to separate Indian history from South asian history thus resorting to history revisionism requires a topic ban for Fowler as well. his relentless English nationalistic POV brings out the worst among other contributing editors. --CarTick (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen anything by Fowler&fowler during the move discussion that I recognized as pro-English POV pushing. Could you please provide relevant diffs if you argue for a topic ban? Huon (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

because he didnt do that. what he did in that move discussion was history revisionism. i am sure you didnt notice that! will provide evidences when topic ban is seriously considered. dont want to waste my time for nothing. --CarTick (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on your view that Fowler&fowler has an "English POV"? Because I don't know what this means in this context and I haven't seen any of it yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Zuggernaut does have a very strong POV on issues regarding India and the British. If you look at Talk:British Empire, about two thirds of archive 12 and most of archive 13 are filled with threads started by him or exacerbated by him trying to add information about famines in India and how they were completely the fault of the British. Back then he was also canvassing and forum shopping to try and get his way (at one point contacting the Ireland noticeboards to try and get them to comment on whether information about famines should be in the article). His POV is very clear when he makes comments such as "I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization" as a reason for including economic information about India in the British Empire article (seen in this thread). Notably when discussing this article he had another editor pegged as a British POV warrior, similar to fowler now. Zuggernaut has twice before used AN/I to try and censure other editors (search for "Zuggernaut" here and here, both of which were remarkable flops. The current disruption has been caused because he found this inventions article and objected to the move to South Asia, which is fair enough. However, he provided no solutions to the issue at hand, and it trying to maintain that the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries should include inventions from all over the Indian subcontinent/South Asia/India before 1947, and for all inventions from the Republic of India as well, going as far as to ask for sources calling ancient inventions Pakistani. I dislike the idea of a topic ban, as the user does make good contributions to some India articles; however there does seem to be some sort of need for it as the same behavioural patterns have continued until now. Perhaps just one relating to Indian/British history, under the discretion of an administrator or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• This remarkable bit of logic just appeared, "reliable sources consider IVC a part of India and per WP:Commonname, India equates to the Republic of India." I leave it up to others to make sense of this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• If others want to take the time to discuss this, I support a topic ban of Zuggernaut as there is plenty of reason to believe the nationalistic POV pushing will never end voluntarily. One clear example was a suggestion here (permalink) that text be added to Famine in India to say that due to his racist views, Winston Churchill had deliberately ignored pleas for emergency food aid and had left the population to starve. Despite the fact that the "refusal" was in 1943 at the height of World War II, Zuggernaut did not want to consider the possibility that the failure to ship food might have been influenced by the war—further than that, Z did not even want the war mentioned, saying "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion" (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That might sound displeasing to Churchill's supporters. but he seems within bounds to suggest that sentnence as i hope he had reliable references to back up his claim. however, the decision to include or exclude the sentence should depend on several other factors, WP:Due being one important. it is a content dispute and he clearly has a pro-Indian POV. what about other editors with pro-English and anti-Indian POVs? --CarTick (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• So, is a topic ban being planned for Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and, if so, how will it proceed? Will RegentsPark and Morsechi (and SpacemanSpiff?), being admins, take the initiative, or will they invite some other admin? Please let us participants here know what is being planned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) is indefinitely:

1. topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

2. banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Misplaced Pages. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.

3. subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages. Note to closing admin: this last measure is to be logged as an enforcement action of the probation listed at 3.

• Proposed. Interaction ban warranted after & . Enforcement of probation warranted after canvassing (note the wording for the lack of neutrality). The repeated POV-pushing warrants the topic ban and need for supervised editing - see other diffs in the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I suspect we may need more evidence presented in order to gain a consensus on this broad proposal, but my observations over the last few months have convinced me that some form of topic ban would be the only way to provide a stable editing environment. My above comment with timestamp "05:04, 30 March 2011" has one example of unhelpful POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose that he has pro-Indian POV (which i dont deny) can not be a reason for such broader bans. everyone comes with a bias. that he has no blocks logged indicates he has worked within the boundaries of wikipedia policies and guidelines. looks like an effort to get rid of a serious opposition to pro-English and anti-Indian POV pushers. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that Ncmvocalist is not acting in good faith? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • nope, i am not. please dont put words in my mouth. i just disagree with him. most of the ban proposers had fought with Zuggernaut in pro-English and anti-Indian camps in various talk pages and i dont expect them to be objective. so, i would say Ncmvocalist is one of the uninvolved here. we should consider where the opposition comes from. i dont want to accuse everyone of holding a grudge against Z. some are sincerely worried about the way Fowler vs Zuggernaut rivalry is playing out in various talk pages. i have my own reservations about Z but i dont think we have sufficient background for topic ban yet. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • i have such a bad memory. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey, Ncmvocalist and many others including myself were defending YellowMonkey. ncmvocalist was quite vocal in his defense. the RFC was filed by User:Yogesh Khandke over a block. Zuggernaut was there opposing YellowMonkey. therefore it is wrong to say Zuggernaut and Ncmvocalist have never interacted. just clarifying. --CarTick (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It appears that you have no idea what the meaning of uninvolved is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • My preference was to avoid losing the user's contributions from all areas of the project when the problems seem to be when he is editing in relation to these topics. But to take an example; arbitration examines the conduct of all involved parties, and as you are one of them in this case, your own conduct could be the subject of a finding of fact. Is it necessary to get to that point before the problem can be addressed through a binding voluntary agreement? If we want to think about blocks, to take you as an example again, your edit-warring in the mainspace ( ) was worthy of a block...but do you really want blocks to be used? These two ways of dealing with the issues are a last resort, and the restrictions I've proposed are to avoid the need for that in the future, particularly if in the case of the Zuggernaut, he can conduct himself more appropriately and provide useful contributions in other topics. Incidentally, having a POV is not the problem; what is a problem is when it is pushed in a way which is disruptive and inappropriate; the canvassing, the comments I linked to above which were directed to Fowler, and what Johnuniq has shared earlier, are just a few examples of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: This seems too harsh. The civility restriction I can agree with, and while we're at it we might consider a WP:1RR restriction to head off edit warring. However, I've seen his most recent interaction with me (on a naming proposal to end the debate that seemingly started all this) to be civil and in compliance with relevant policy. Obviously the consensus hasn't been judged yet, and I'd be curious to see what his attitude will be when/if the consensus is judged to be against his point of view on the matter. N419BH 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did consider 1RR, but I think it simply slows the edit-warring down to a point of exhausting everyone involved rather than resolving the underlying concern. That (to me anyway) seems pointless and will just exhaust precious time unnecessarily when it could be spent addressing the content issues. I'm not going to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable (I've been here far too long to try to meddle with what is destined to happen, be it an arbitration case, or more frequent usage of the blocking tool to prevent the problems). But at least after reading this discussion, nobody in the future can complain that there was a shortage of practical good faith proposals at the time (which is now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Support in light of Zuggernaut's response, which clearly indicates a total lack of understanding of the issues at hand and is full of wikilawyering. Enough. N419BH 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Limited Support: As I said above, Zuggernaut has done good work (a few GA's etc.) in some areas, and I don't wish to see him shut out of areas of editing unnecessarily. The topic ban range under 1 sounds feasible, although perhaps could be trimmed down to just British history, unless similar problems exist for other time scales. As for 2, I'm not sure if this will help. Fowler's not the only editor Zug's had these issues with, and frankly I don't think Fowler gives a damn (he can correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, Fowler works on many Indian related articles, so this may push Zuggernaut out of non-history areas as well. I'm not sure what 3 will work, although if it's creating a place where administrators can look over complaints that sounds good. As for 4, that seems to depend on 3. In the end, what I really wish for Zuggernaut to understand is that just because information he wants to place about how India's economy was destroyed, or how Churchill was racist, or how famines were caused by the British, was not added to the article due to other editors does not mean that the article is controlled by a British cabal, or that the editors involved are pro-English and anti-Indian. He should make sure he's not out on a mission to right great wrongs and fix the systematic bias of the wiki, and needs to understand that opposition to his pro-India edits does not mean a systematic bias is being enforced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Changed to support. As seen in his response below, Zuggernaut just doesn't understand what it wrong, and refuses to acknowledge he's violated guidelines on editing. His claim he doesn't know if he has violated canvass is (per his want to call things a spade) complete bullshit. A previous time he was accused of canvassing, he asked about it here, and was told that it was indeed canvassing. After that he made a request (section below that) to change the guideline to allow people to ask others to vote with them. He has even edited the actual guideline. Another user additionally noted in the discussion that he was forum shopping, which he has also done at the systematic bias page, and arguably has done with this and previous AN/I's. In summary, he has broken editing guidelines, and he knows it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• From my brief time spent looking at this problem and being involved at the list page, I'll support 2 (very strongly, as he's openly admitted wikistalking), 3 (clearly necessary), and 4. 1 is probably a little OTT for now, and can easily be implemented under 3 later if necessary. Best, Moreschi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 per my reasons above. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, and 4, particularly 2 due to odious wikistalking. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 3 without reservations. At this point this is a necessary measure, given the past behavior on various topics (Famine in India, India, British Empire etc etc). 4 is just a subset of 1, so I'm not sure it needs to be called out, but it has my support nevertheless. As far as 2 goes, I think it's necessary in principle, but the behavior is not restricted to F&f, so something broader would be preferred in terms of addressing the issue of wikistalking and not just interaction with one editor. That said, there's also the problem of one-way interaction bans (although there's no reason to make this a two-way ban currently) being that there's always the possibility of the perception of the banned party not being able to respond etc. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 and 3. (4 comes under 1) We all come here with our biases, but most of us learn to suppress the worst of them and work within the limitations wikipedia imposes on us. In the past, i had hoped Zuggernaut would change his ways and use his obvious talent to do some good work; But his disruptive behaviour far outweighs the article work he has done. I dont believe any editor who advocates censorship based on nationality, wikistalks, throws out insults like "brown sahib", "acting white" would be a net positive to India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am mentioned by name in the proposal, I won't express an opinion on Zuggernaut. I will say that Zuggernaut was not the only one accusing people of anti-India and pro-British bias; CarTick, too, on the Talk:India page was accusing me, and Chipmunkdavis as well, of such bias, repeatedly accusing me of having "sneaked in" the reference to the British East India Company in the lead, and making me out to be a 21st century lobbyist for the East India Company on Misplaced Pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: For an amazing disregard for the dignity of other editors. For a shameless modus operandi of canvassing, race- and nationality-baiting, and bulldozing through painstakingly built consensus. For a lack of demonstrated self-improvement and compromise, revealing an incorrigible POV crusader attitude. Quigley (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support; Nationalist pov-pushing is incredibly destructive (it either wears down the productive editors, or it consumes all their time). bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor in question has not a single block, so their editing has been well within the confines of existing policies and guidelines. A case of canvassing (perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't) is not reason enough for what is essentially an "India" topic ban -- EVERYTHING relating to India is part of its history!!! Mentoring may be a better option, instead of drastic measures such as being proposed here. What is it with a community which would rather ban editors - because that is the easy way out! --Russavia 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Z has a series of POV positions, if he looses them in one article he tries again elsewhere. Time for him to take a break for a period --Snowded 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Responses

Three policy violations have been cited for the ban. I will address each of them below.

1. POV pushing - As a part of my editing philosophy, I follow the essay on POV pushing, which says:

The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.

Since I have never knowingly violated 3RR and since I've now been sticking to 1RR as an editing philosophy, it is, by definition, impossible for me to push my POV in to articles. I would like to point out that all of the diffs and references made to my violation of this policy by those who want me banned are from talk pages.

2. Wikistalking - I had been thinking of setting up a new project about special India issues for several months. A diff from February shows this. Since I spend only a limited amount of time on Misplaced Pages per day, I never got around to doing this until March 4. In preparation of the creation of such a project proposal, I was searching Misplaced Pages for India-related articles that would come under this project. One such article amongst several others that I was able to locate was the List of Indian inventions and discoveries.

3. Canvassing - Per my colloquial usage of English, I am pretty sure that my notification on the India noticeboard is not "non-neutral" but I now see how other speakers of English variants might see it as non-neutral. I'm sorry about that.

Here's my general editing philosophy on Misplaced Pages:

• No edit warring, stick to 1RR
• Stick to WP:BRD
• Stick to all known Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines closely (no particular diffs to provide, just look at my entire edit history)
• If there is a policy or guideline that I have hitherto not been aware of and have violated, I apologize for doing so and I ensure that I abide by it in the future
• Calling a spade
• Be civil and polite as seen in GA success for Upanishads, GA success for Deshastha Brahmin, GA success for the Third Anglo-Maratha War

A friendly note to closing admin - here's what the banning policy says:

If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Pretty much everyone here who has participated in the ban discussion has been involved with the underlying dispute. Exceptions are Moreschi and N419BH. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Zuggernaut, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of uninvolved anymore than you understand the meaning of tendentious POV pushing (the page you're looking at is an essay and what you've cherry picked out of that part of the essay is not widely held by the community). Good intentions don't justify disruption, and similarly, the worst kind of disruption occurs on talk pages. These proposals are giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can contribute usefully in other areas without engaging in problematic conduct; perhaps this issue won't exist in areas you don't feel so strongly about, and perhaps in the future you can resist your temptation to push POV so strongly to the point of testing and exhausting the patience of so many of your peers. In any event, whether you voluntarily accept the restrictions as binding, or whether they need to be imposed on you involuntarily, is another question altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a response to the actual issue, such as the Churchill dispute that I mentioned above? Do you believe that it would be reasonable to state that a significant cause of a famine was Churchill's racism which led to him to deliberately ignore pleas for emergency food aid, without any mention of the fact that Churchill was fully occupied as one of the "big three" leaders fighting World War II, and might have had a number of issues competing for his attention? Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the editor's defence, people should read things such as this, for example. There are clearly reliable sources out there which put forward the view that Churchill was racist in regards to Indians. Or this which states: "Few statesmen of the 20th century have reputations as outsize as Winston Churchill's. And yet his assiduously self-promoted image as what the author Harold Evans called "the British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization" rests primarily on his World War II rhetoric, rather than his actions as the head of a government that ruled the biggest empire the world has ever known. Madhusree Mukerjee's new book, Churchill's Secret War, reveals a side of Churchill largely ignored in the West and considerably tarnishes his heroic sheen." If the points raised in this and other reliable sources are accurate, then yes, this is a POV that is valid for inclusion in articles relating to the famine and Churchill himself. For the POV that you are asking about, you would of course need reliable sources to back up your assertions as to the reason for famine, etc. This clearly looks to me to be a case of an editor presenting information into articles that others don't want to see, and this as an attempt to censure said editor for wanting to do so. --Russavia 15:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying he was racist. The problem is Zuggernaut wanted to insert information in the article along the lines of "These Indians died because Winston Churchill was racist and withheld food from them", when in fact he no doubt had bigger things on his mind at the time, which Zuggernaut thought was tangential (as has been pointed out above). Besides, it's not based on this one incident, and the current report was caused by his complaint about a completely different article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Russavia: Mukherjee's book has been roundly criticized, both in the New York Times review by Joe Lelyveld and by Amartya Sen himself (quoted in the review). Churchill might or might not have been a racist, but his decision not to send emergency food rations to Bengal has other explanations. As Lelyveld says in his review (see full quotes in the Talk:India archives), Churchill's main scientific adviser, Lord Cherwell, was an astute man and had in fact anticipated many of the principles enunciated by Sen five decades later. Cherwell, was of the view that there was enough food, but it was being held back by unscrupulous hoarders (both among the farmers and the grain merchants) and profiteers, that it would be more effective policy (bringing speedier relief) to go publicly after the hoarders and profiteers than to divert rations from elsewhere (already strained by the demands of a global war). In other words, Churchill's culpability is by no means a historical fact. In spite of this, Zuggernaut wanted to insert two loaded sentences about it in the very distilled history section of the India page, which earlier didn't have anything about the Bengal famine or any other famine, or World Wars, I or II. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, Zuggernaut is here because he opposed moving List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. for reasons and motives i will never understand, User:Fowler&fowler suddenly decided a few weeks ago that Indian history is too confusing for him. what next Fowler? moving all the content from History of India to History of South Asia?. Zuggernaut, rightfully opposed that. i dont think it is a mistake in Z's part at all. He is one of the over 10 oppose votes. there are roughly equal number (may be more) of "oppose" and "support" votes. this is just to make the point, he is not in the minority.

now, talk about canvassing. I dont think User:Moreschi is here as an uninvolved editor. Here is the message] Fowler left in his talk page in the middle of a previous dispute in Talk:India page. From the message, one could reasonably conclude that they have a good wiki-relationship. Moreschi was just waiting for an opportunity and this ANI provided him the cover. he did this edit without even participating in the conversation. anyone who has the time to read the discussion page (at and until the time he made that edit or until now) can conclude that there is no consensus to remove any content from the article. Yes, Fowler was not explicit as Zuggernaut has been. --CarTick (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick: First, Zuggernaut is not here because he cast an oppose vote in the India vs. South Asia page move. Many editors opposed that move, include a handful that are now supporting Zuggernaut's topic ban. Zuggernaut is here because he chose to open an ANI thread in order to after some people (including me). Unfortunately, the plan backfired, because after months of opening similar ANI threads, Zuggernaut's pattern of editing on Indian history topics is becoming manifest. It is that pattern of editing that is being castigated here. Second, it's not a good idea, CarTick, to make up outlandish conspiracy theories and then treat them as fact. I merely welcomed Moreschi, who I had heard had left Misplaced Pages, back to active editing. I have always liked his firm opposition to all forms of nationalistic POV-pushing on Misplaced Pages. Please don't make wild connections in order to bolster you flimsy argument. If I had in fact intended to leave a coded message for Moreschi to intervene in the Talk:India dispute (whatever it was), I obviously didn't succeed, since Moreschi didn't intervene on the Talk:India page, but somewhere else, a few weeks later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, Zuggernaut is here because one of his traditional moves - complain about bias to ANI - has backfired. I supported the ban topic because i am tired of being accused of being a "brown sahib" if i oppose him and getting sick of attempts at censorship by nationalism. I have supported and opposed Zuggernaut's proposals in equal measure before. Fowler's attempt to change "India" to "South Asia" is nothing new. SBC-YPR made a to move "History of India" to "History of Indian Subcontinent" in 2009, for precisely the same reasons. I count atleast two other oppose voters - regents and spiff - in the inventions move discussion here. This should indicate even those people who sometimes support Zuggernaut's proposals are fed up with his actions--Sodabottle (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found Zuggernaut disagreeable in many occasions and I expect to disagree with him in the future. However, there really is no case for topic ban yet. here is why.

1. This ANI, as other would have us believe, does not appear to be frivolous. User:Athenean, User:Huon, User:S Seagal, User:Fowler&fowler, User:Mar4d, User:Gun Powder Ma, User:AshwiniKalantri and User:Shovon76 supported User:Gun Powder Ma's proposal. User:Zuggernaut, User:Wikireader41, User:Mdw0, User:Ohms law and User:Andrewa opposed it. 8 support votes and 5 oppose votes at the time the content was moced. 5th oppose vote by Andrewa was at 18:25, 27 March 2011. The content from the article was removed at 20:08, 27 March 2011. Gun Powder had created the South Asian List before the last two oppose votes. 1) there was no overwhelming consensus to remove content 2) it is conflict of interest to judge and execute the consensus by one of the highly involved editor, GunPowder. Z filed this report at 00:50, 29 March 2011. i am willing to buy the argument that the last two oppose votes happened late and it could be that GunPowder didnt notice it. now, i will let other uninvolved editors decide whether this is a frivolous thread. while everyone is upset about the frivolousness, nobody seems to care about the conflict of interest.
2. That Mukerjee's book got bad review at NYTimes review can not be an argument for exclusion. the book has made news across the world. one possible way to deal with this issue could have been to add both Mukerjee's book and also add the NY times book review and let the readers decide instead of censoring it. regardless of the merit of the case, the point is, in both cases, Churchil's racism and Indian list as extensivley discussed in this thread, Z had references that supported his POV and is not entirely wrong. I dont see any difference between the passionate defense of Churchill by some of the editors here and Z's passionate involvement in Indian history articles. POV is a POV.
3. Thanks for pointing out the History of India to History of Indian subcontinent move by another user. i would like to note here that Fowler wants India to be changed to South Asia (not Indian subcontinent) per the discussion page.
4. Calling users "Brown Sahib" or "acting white" is reprehensible. he could be warned in his talk page and if continued, even blocked to convey the message. now, Zuggernaut was not the only one acting uncivil. please see the discussion pages Fowler has participated. he was reprimanded by User:Shovon76 here.

In summary, when claims of POV pushing, frivolous ANI threads, uncivil comments and canvassing accusations are weighed in sum, there is really not sufficient background for topic ban yet. He was not even blocked once for either uncivility, edit warring or canvassing. i would recommend a formal warning, followed by a few blocks (if he repeats) before we even consider topic ban. as it stands, topic ban is too premature, early and exceedingly excessive. --CarTick (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Shovon76, The issue is not whether Mukerjee's book is a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages's definition. Pretty much any trade paperback popular history or newspaper review meets Misplaced Pages's definition. However, sources in Featured Article have to be held to a higher standard. WP:RS say, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." A featured article, moreover, is required to report the consensus among scholarly sources, and in the absence of such consensus to report the controversy. Among the manifold scholarly sources on the Bengal famine of 1943, what is the consensus (if any) about the causes of the famine and where is Churchill's culpability in all of it? Mukerjee's book is not a scholarly book, it is a popular (trade) history. Even if it were a scholarly work, it is too recent to be a part of the scholarly debate. (Mukherjee has written no journal articles on this topic.) Besides, there is no record of Zuggernaut adding these details, indeed any details about the Bengal famine, to the History of India page. Since "History of India" is written in summary style, the causes of the Bengal famine (in contrast to a mention), might be WP:UNDUE in the first place, especially since many much worse famines are not mentioned. How then does Churchill's culpability belong to History of India's own summary, which—double distilled—forms the India page history section? If this is not WP:Main article fixation playing itself out in relentless POV-pushing, I don't what is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PS to Shovon76. As for the "reprimand" diff you provided, perhaps you should have also provided diffs for my reply and your more balanced response to the reply. The problem here is not one of incivility, but of something much more insidious and hard to deal with: relentless POV pushing, especially nationalistic. As someone said upstairs, it wears down other editors and even if it doesn't, it takes up all their time. There are sources out there these days for the wildest of assertions, and POV-pushers are good at cherry-picking one source, e.g. Mukherjee, and attempting to make it worthy of mention in a page in which both the topic and the decades of scholarly research in it have thus far gone unmentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Shovon76 that he also thought that we could start splitting the article here. I fail to see how he can now turn around and accuse others of acting prematurely or even of gaming the system for doing what he too advised without becoming a hypocrite. Huon (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of non-free content policy

I'm being repeatedly reverted while trying to enforce the non-free content policy on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the non-free image File:2001child2.JPG is being used as a top decoration (see the article's history and the file's history).

The fair use rationale's says the image is necessary because one of the article's sections discusses a certain passage in the movie captured by the image. But not only the discussion is obviously not about the "visual aspect" of the passage, but the image is also not even placed on the mentioned section.

I'm reporting here because I can preview the outcome of being reverted again, being myself reported at 3RR, and being blocked for that. I hope someone with a better reputation than mine could interfere to do the policy enforcement. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on the actual merits of the image, but just saying, you probably should not add speedy tags to an image that has either survived a previous deletion discussion or is currently being discussed. If you still want it deleted, you should start a new FfD with an explanation of why the "keep" !voters in the previous one failed to address your concerns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking it to be deleted. I'm just removing it from the article where it's used as a decoration. --Damiens.rf 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, did somebody hack into your account? --RussNelson (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Why do you ask? I miss the point with the link. --Damiens.rf 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not misreading that tag on the image, are you? It clearly says "This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed (..) Unless this concern is addressed (...) the image will be deleted or removed from some uses." Was that your problem? --Damiens.rf 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because 1) the image otherwise conforms to the basic requirements of NFCC (has a rationale, licensed, and used in at least one article, in addition to the use you are contesting), and 2) it is a disagreement over whether the image is really needed or not (eg does it meet NFCC#8), it is not a good idea to edit war on image removal. You should try discussing the image inclusion on the talk page, and, failing that, at Non-free content review to discuss that specific usage. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I observe that you have not engaged editors on the page about this topic. Please try discussing your objection to the image before outright waring to have it removed. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether a fair use image is validly used or not in an article is a content dispute that should be resolved through discussion (WP:DR), not by reverting. People may in good faith disagree about this, and edit-warring about this matter is just as disruptive as edit-warring about any other content issue, such as whether any content is original research or has undue weight.  Sandstein  17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article's editor's will always want to put as much images on "their" article, and nfcc would never be respected. I don't thing enforcing a policy needs to be discussed on talk page, since it's not an editorial decision. I'll try the non-free content review link you posted. Is it really active? --Damiens.rf 17:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps the complaining editor should have discussed the issue on the article's talk page, where other editors were discussing it. Dreadstar ☥ 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't try to create an animosity. You know I've discussed the matter with you. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Considering the nature of the star-child, I doubt very much that someone's attempt to "describe it" is adequate. The visual speaks a thousand words. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The "visual" is not discussed in the article. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Why not? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Probably because no one found a reliable source that does that. --Damiens.rf 20:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
            • The image is discussed in the article, check out the lead and the section it's currently in. And if you don't think there are plenty of sources for that most iconic image of the entire movie, then you really haven't looked at the 2001:A Space Odyssey articles at all. Dreadstar ☥ 22:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• WP:Concensus, try it. If several editors are against you in the interpertation of policy, it could be a sign that you're not reading it correctly. Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• This has been listed at WP:NFR, and that's the best venue for the discussion. fteSil (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Round two

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Facepalm Damien is again pulling the same stunt at Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear over some text The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

• The issue has now been listed here: Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#File:2001child2.JPG. Dreadstar ☥ 22:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (revised 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
  • What the fuck? I was advised here on this thread to bring it up to Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#File:2001child2.JPG. Stop making a confrontation out of everything. I'm sick of you treating me as a second class editor. --Damiens.rf 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (Thanks for retracting your text, Dreadstar! --Damiens.rf 16:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
    • This language is not helpful, but Dreadstar, that is indeed the place for this debate to happen. Talk pages and even ANI are not for detailed copyright discussions, as I learned recently over the Khaled Said image. No comment on the image itself, or Damiens' behavior, but there's no question that forum shopping doesn't apply to getting to the right place. Ocaasi 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Damiens you were advised to address it on the article's talk page before bringing it ot NFCR, you didn't do that,first second so save the profanity for elsewhere. Dreadstar ☥ 02:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Besides going against WP:CONSENSUS, the point is that the editor has been forum shopping all along. Lucky now that it's in the right forum, eh? And none of this excuses Damiens edit warring. This isn't Damiens' first rodeo. Dreadstar ☥ 02:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian detained by campus police for taking pictures

Template:Image I was taking pictures of buildings of a two-year public college in New Jersey called Union County College (UCC) when I was detained by campus security for a half an hour. Most pictures were of buildings, classrooms, plaques on walls, an empty gym. I was going to add them to the UCC article. Two pictures had students (all over 18 yrs old) in it (but I got their email addresses and permission to use their photos). Campus security said: no pictures. Officer John Britton took my drivers' license for information. He only told me his name; he wouldn't show any ID or badge. I got the impression that if I kept taking pictures they would either forcibly remove me from campus or arrest me. They didn't take my camera. About student pictures, I am not sure what the overall rules or legality is, so I won't post pictures of students. But buildings? Empty classrooms? Paid for out of taxpayer dollars? A public two-year community college in New Jersey? Sheesh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm wondering how to do this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not really think this is an issue that theEnglish Misplaced Pages can handle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they have the legal right to, that rarely stops cops from detaining people over taking pictures. Sorry, just the mistrustful of government cynic in me showing through. As to ArbCom, all the information is on this page, where you can find info on contacting them on-wiki, opening a case, and even contains some of their personal e-mails. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to get any relief from ArbCom on this one. NW (Talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you get your drivers license back? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you remind them that its a public school?--JOJ 01:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Copping an attitude with cops is typically not the best approach. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not me, I'd give them attitude. As long as I know that I'm not breaking any laws, I would give them as much grief as lawfully possible. Most likely they know that they can't do anything to you, but will go as far as they think they can go, before going too far.--JOJ 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your funeral, as they say. :) My philosophy is to never argue with somebody with a gun and/or club attached to their belt. :) In the case of these cops, my guess is that they are under orders to disallow picture taking, and they might not be at liberty to say why. But if a cop told me, "No pictures", I wouldn't launch into some spiel about civil rights or something. I would simply act surprised (or maybe I wouldn't have to "act") and then ask, "Really? Why?" and they'll either tell you why or they won't. If they won't, then a call to the administrative office might clear it up. But as I've found out from past experience, you'll get a lot better karma with cops if you treat them like folks with a job to do, and act friendly and cooperative toward them, than if you treat them as adversaries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not much we can do here. Be honest with them and they shouldn't give you trouble. They're just ensuring the security of campus. Tell them what you're up to and unless you caught him before his coffee and donut you'll be okay. N419BH 01:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the New York City area, where there is probably still some terrorist-threat mentality. And who knows what kinds of incidents they've had that may have impelled them to disallow picture taking. Howeover, what Tom ought to do is contact the administration and ask for permission to take snapshots. Get something in writing and hand it to the cops if they bug you again. Above all, be friendly and courteous to the cops. Don't do anything that they will see as impeding their ability to do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for advice. Yes got Drivers license back. Basically not much to do, but be polite, etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that being paid for by tax dollars doesn't mean what it sounds like. The jail is paid for by tax dollars, but you can't just wander in it and start taking pics, right? Drive around taking pictures of the fence that tax dollars put around the airport and there is a fair chance you'll be questioned. In the future, maybe get in touch with the administration (or maybe the computer science dept) and get someone to tell you it's all cool. It could save time in the end. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So, no student at the school has ever used a cell phone to take of a photo of the place, even if only as incidental background to the usual teenage snaps? Silly policing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he wants more photos he should call the school's administrative office and ask what the deal is. Some of us would like to know. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the buildings possibly being protected by architectural copyright, I would say upload away.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have new pictures. Upload? I was thinking along these lines. I was told drawings are okay. So I could substitute drawings of the buildings for the pictures. Then UCC will be happy. Wouldn't this be a good solution? I sometimes think of myself as a great arteeeste (nobody else thinks so!). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time, try taking pictures of the buildings at USC. ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that it was the Daily Trojan reporting...how apropos is that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks Will. Great story. Here's what I was thinking:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Image

You forgot to add a small likeness of a brownshirt standing guard. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see picture above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to an outline of the law as it applies to photography in the United States; it's been extensively circulated among photographers and is useful to keep with you . However, a college campus isn't exactly public space, and much depends on what's a public street and what's not. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're posting in the wrong place; there's nothing an enwiki admin can help you with here. I'd suggest contacting a licensed legal professional. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling the school would be the best option. Probably have to wait until Monday. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I think has hit on the answer. Please keep in mind that even if you don't give cops cause to arrest you, they don't have to stretch the truth very much to make your life miserable. For example, when they took your DL, they probably called in to check for warrants. He can take his time about doing that, and what are you going to do? And I don't even want to start on patdowns and automobile searches. I would be polite, say something like "I didn't know that, thanks." Don't get smart with them, get out of their jurisdiction pronto, and Monday morning, if it's worth making an issue over, call campus information and start looking for the responsible official. Don't call the campus police, let the official do that if you are lucky enough to get action. And if you then go back (I would not, I would ask your students for help if more images are needed), take a printout of the email in which he says its OK to take images on campus.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And, btw, a college campus is not a true public place. There are generally statutes or ordinances which allow them to restrict access. You don't want to be restricted from campus, that sort of thing goes into computers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise good points, and something else just occurred to me: You know how cops will sometimes pull someone over due to "a taillight out" or something like that? As a policeman acquaintance once told me, that's a "pretext" to justify pulling over someone that they've got an odd feeling about. So it's possible that the cops, for whatever reason, thought the OP "looked suspicious", so they used the camera thing as a pretext to running the ID through their system. Dollars to donuts, that's what was actually going on there. It would be good, next time, if there is a next time, to have documentation permitting photography. That will legitimize your being there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• And as the Supreme Court has upheld many times, pretext stops are perfectly fine. BTW, making a cartoon and calling them "dicks" is really kinda childish, don't ya think. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe they have a bugaboo about photography on campus because of some incident or other. I would not assume you'd get a different deal next time, especially if you run into the same cops, who might make an issue out of general principles. Only go back if you have your ducks in a row.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some places are odd that way. Do you know it's illegal to take a photograph of the New Jersey Turnpike (at least from Turnpike property)? I seem to recall an incident where someone was cited or arrested that caused me to look up the Turnpike regulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, photography restrictions on private property are a non-copyright restriction, which basically means you may be illegally trespassing to take the photos, but if you pull it off, we'll take them (without necessarily endorsing your actions). Also, in the US, architectural copyright falls under freedom of panorama, so there is no copyright issue in uploading photos of buildings; moreover there is no US law restricting candid photographs of persons (personality rights law only restricts the use of a person's image for promotion), and our policy on identifiable people does not restrict any photograph of a person taken in a public place where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

As for the cops, personally, I'd consider placing photography restrictions on a public school campus as a gross abuse of the government's responsibility to represent the interests of the people in places and functions where public funding is involved, and if that happened to me I would lawyer up and talk to the press about it too. But that's a big investment and your response is up to you. :-) Dcoetzee 04:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not really an admin idea, but I'd call the local media and see if a reporter wants a 'freedoms being denied' story for this week's paper/broadcast. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with age I've learned that not every windmill is worth having a tilt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said earlier, get your ducks in a row before taking any kind of action. And one of those ducks would be to find out whether they have such a policy, and if so, why. I'm tempted to call them myself on Monday. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Even better: their student handbook says that College staff can take pictures of anyone, anywhere on campus; these pictures become the property of the school, individuals depicted have no right to compensation. — they wanna take their own pictures and market them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks you've found the "smoking duck". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

...and the smoking dicks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's actually fairly reasonable. They don't want to worry about compensation and rights when assembling school materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Release forms need to be signed or else the pictures can't be used. What they're doing won't stand a chance in court should someone sue them (that's AZ, maybe NJ is full of dickheads). In any case, this whole thing is ridiculous; as long as there are no identifiable people on the pics, the OP should happily keep uploading them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, as mentioned above, if the building remains copyrighted under Freedom of Panorama, then it cannot be uploaded as a free image. Secondly, as far as the cops are concerned, yeah, I would be a little concerned as far as their actions, but there are several things I would like to comment on right regards to that. There are only two things that come to my mind as to why the campus security would come down on the user in question: first, terrorism; second, stalking (i.e. I don't need to go into much reason why it is illegal to take any pictures in locker rooms in gyms.). That being said, both reasons I gave are fairly weak and would be poor reasons to apprehend a person just because he/she was taking pictures of buildings and other miscellany.

All that being said, File:Union County College Police.jpg needs to come down, and now. That is a blatant attack image and is hence deletable under WP:CSD#G10. Moreover, it gives a bad image for established Wikipedians, who, despite our collective "rebellious" nature, should not be stooping this low to launch such attacks outward like that. Moreover again, it is extremely bad taste to be posting such images. I understand the user is frustrated and certainly has the right to complain, and while Misplaced Pages should not be the sole place for that, we should not be openly attacking other organizations or otherwise be complicit in that; such open attacks should be taken elsewhere on the Internet. –MuZemike 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit) I just realized the image in question was uploaded to Commons. However, the same deletion rationale applies, and it should still be taken down due to its vindicitive nature. –MuZemike 07:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit confused. Freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright law which (in the US) permits two-dimensional reproductions of copyrighted architecture (but not of sculptures, posters, etc). Dcoetzee 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I was just gonna say that. Otherwise, we could all trash whatever cameras we have in urban areas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Image

I sleep, wake up and this thread is still going strong. Thank you everybody for your intelligent comments -- it is a highly instructive lesson. You people are sharp and smart and what makes Misplaced Pages great (my OR); I appreciate the attention because it suggests on some level a kind of support. So, what I'm getting is the attack-cartoon is counter-productive (yes I'm being somewhat childish); if I choose to upload the 17+ pictures of buildings (no people) which are in my camera it will be cool with Misplaced Pages, right? That is, Misplaced Pages probably won't delete them. (Although if they're posted perhaps I might get in further trouble with Union County College? -- yes I'm willing perhaps to put up with this). Monday I should call the administration and followup on this. What about drawings of buildings? (see picture to the right) Last, I used to be a local reporter, and my reporter's instinct says that whenever people are exerting effort to block pictures, even asking police to detain people taking pictures, there may be something they're trying to hide. And even last, I think we're all wanting to wind down this thread, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

None of us speak for Misplaced Pages, but I don't see any valid grounds for deletion, and really doubt anyone is going to ask for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to spam, but here's the section from Common's Freedom of Panorama for the US : Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date.
However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.
This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the photograph is taken from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans (so one is free to do anything short of reproducing the building with another building, but the style elements such as gargoyles and pillars would not be individually protected). For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed from public places.

So the questions to ask are: are the buildings completed before Dec 1 1990? If so, you have every right to photograph them regardless of where you are located. If they were completed after that date, you can only take photos from public areas. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "public area" here mean "publicly accessible area" or "not privately owned grounds"? The wording you just cited, where "such interior public spaces as lobbies" are included, would point towards the former, right? In that case, a campus area would obviously also qualify as public. If he could walk into those areas unhindered, it was evidently publicly accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's generally what is meant: if you aren't restricted by any physical or personal means from entering the area, it's considered open to the public, and photos of anything taken from it are completely legal, and thus the only question becomes the copyright issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that a campus, an outdoor area, is akin to a lobby, it's a public space that people pass through freely and that also contains areas the inside of which is private. Access can be restricted if necessary, but for most, most of the time, people come and go as they please. In other words, it's not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I'll copy & paste the section about freedom of panorama to use if necessary, if challenged. Thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Even so, don't go without something from the administration. All you need is some cop with what do I care about something off the internet I told you not to do that, now you're coming with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of the photos you took, your treatment by camous security sounds like a serious infringement of your rights, and I strongly suggest that you speak to lawyer about what options you may have for launching a lawsuit against Union County College, the security guard personally, and the company that he works for. In my opinion, nothing you have described would give a campus security guard the right to detain you. It sounds to me like you may have been unlawfully detained by campus security and you may have a legitimate claim to made for damages, including punitive damages. Seek out a torts lawyer and get legal advice. As for your photos, my understanding of copyright law is that if you took them, then you own them. Best of luck. 72.175.231.30 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Union County College

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Union_County_College#Reply_from_Union_County_College

-- Avanu (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Avanu. Appreciate. The only commotion that I saw was in the minds of the marketing people worrying that some reporter might make their school look bad! :) I've been doing a revamp of the article; since it's SO contentious, I'm leaving it in my sandbox until I get some guidance. Here's the proposed Union County College revamp. Gotta drive my daughter to you know where. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to discuss WWI genocide issue

As part of copy editing an article on alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians in WWI, it occurred to me that the article might be badly named/disambiguated/categorised, which isn't really my field.

Because of Turkish-Armenian sensitivities about this topic, I wonder whether there is a senior editor/admin with some expertise or interest in WWI or genocide who might discuss with me how I best go about not just abandoning this article to obscurity or pseudo-orphan status after the copy edit. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an incident. It was moved here by an administrator who didn't think it should be on the admin noticeboard. What I actually seek is input and advice, not action, resolution, or rule interpretation. So I've placed a adminhelp template on my talk page. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you need input from an admin in particular i.e why it belongs in either admin board Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Because -

1. Where else will I find lots of admins (searching help for contacts is futile)
2. Admins sometimes complain about hasty, unilateral actions by editors - something I want to avoid
3. Editors are encouraged in many communiques from Misplaced Pages big-wigs to ask before doing something pre-emptively
4. I didn't want to leave behind me a mess for someone else to find and clean up (that might be you, mightn't it?)
5. The topic is sensitive enough to warrant input from someone senior and/or au fait with policies that I may have no knowledge or understanding of (sounds like admin, smells like admin, is it admin?)
6. The topic is complex enough to deserve the attention of someone with an interest or expertise in doing it right
7. I want to know how issues like this are approached by Misplaced Pages seniors (sounds like admin ...)

I have a question for you: Is administrator input not something I can seek legitimately? If this is the wrong place, delete the entire thread. If you don't want to help, don't, but maybe you can suggest where I can find that help.

Finally, now attempt to block out for a moment your admin subjectivity and all you know about how things are done here, including the pain-in-the-arse workload you no doubt face with real incidents. Reconsider for a moment everything I have said and done, including not posting this here in the first place, and put yourself in my shoes. What conclusions would you reach about my experience with this request? Your question to me is that I answer for you precisely the questions I want to discuss with a senior Misplaced Pages contributor (read admins, the people who are supposed to know). Why would I seek that assistance if I already had the answers? Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If your editing of the article in question is likely to be contentious, then it is better to outline your proposed edit on the article's talk page and open a discussion. Admins are no more expert in a particular subject matter than any other editor, and in many cases, a non-admin may have better expertise on a particular subject. A relevant Wikiproject may also be a good venue to discuss issues and proposed edits. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Wince (shoulders slumping in discomfiture). Once more. This is not a dispute, edit war, or fire that needs to be put out. I did not put the request here - that was done by your admin colleague Jayron32, Skomorokh (sorry Jayron32)who moved it from vanilla admin notice board to here. The editing is done. The assistance required now is discussion on what to do with the article next.

I repeat, if this isn't the place for my request, or no one really gives a toss, please just delete the whole thread. What I'm trying to do here is prevent making decisions that might become someone else's headache in future, but without shrugging my shoulders and abandoning an article I know is ill-named or orphaned. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So you originally posted to AN and it got moved here -- that's no big deal, the overlap in readers for these two noticeboards is probably considerable, so there's no need to keep complaining about that move. Good or bad, it's here and it's not going back.

What I'm reading from your request is that you have concerns about an article's naming, and you want to talk to generally Misplaced Pages-knowledgeable editors about it, so you reached out to admins for help, but you don't seem inclined to post your request to the article's talk page, where you could talk to editors who may be generally less knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages, but who edit the article and are therefore interested in the subject, and possibly even knowledgable about it. Nor do you seem interested in talking to people in the WikiProject(s) that cover the subject matter.

I think the answer, obviously not the one you're looking for, is that if you have questions about the name of the article, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, or on the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject, and stop attempting to avoid discussing the issue with people who may disagree with you. Being Bold is one thing, but being bold when you clearly have concerns that your actions will be disagreed with and will not have consensus behind it, so you want to CYA in advance with some generic advice from admins, could be seen as being deliberately disruptive.

Discuss on the talk page, get a consensus there, then act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have now ripped from my stooped shoulders the cunning disguise of St Wales's cloak of good will, I hereby confess to my nefariously subversive intent. In my black conspirator's heart I deliberately ignored the fact that the discussion on the actual page is dead, that prior to me arriving as per GOCE request to copy edit, the last comment is more than a year old and indicative of a nationalist animus between the previous editors active there. So in my devious effort to subvert the project by re-igniting a nationalist edit war I passed up the opportunity to poke a stick into a hornet's nest and came here instead, drawing all attention to my obviously dishonourable intentions. It was a calculated risk, because I could have just taken it to the Turkey Portal, thrown it in there with a box of matches and some shellite, and ensured a renewed ethnic/nationalist edit war between Turks and Armenians. Instead of doing that pre-emptively, I managed to get you to advise me to do it, right?

As a dastardly conspirator I am particularly proud of my ability to have manipulated you into semiotically transforming a request for help into an open accusation of deliberately disruptive behaviour. There was, of course, the risk you might have passed up the opportunity to patronise me by actually looking at the page and gaining the impression that I was seeking advice about the right way to approach the issue without starting an edit war or ill feelings unless and until all the options had been explored. But us conspirators love to take 'hot dang' risks. Conspiracies wouldn't be fun without them, would they?

I thought it was pretty devious of me to pretend that I was acknowledging other people might have greater insight in preventing conflict. And wasn't it just a brilliant stroke of genius for me to engineer this admin semiotic reality-adjustment machine (ASRAM, us conspirators loooove acronyms) to ensure that all administrators in the known universe are now watching me for evidence that I'm doing something sneaky rather than trying to think proactively about helping the project? Conspiracies are more fun than sincere attempts at exploring options, right?

But my absolute masterstroke in this plot has been my uncanny ability to prevent anyone here from having any sympathy for the encyclopaedic project and the topic itself, thus engineering an ironic and truly destructive recreation of the post WWI bureaucratic failures that led to this topic becoming a major thorn in the side for people in that region to this very day. Was I not magnificent at obscuring the hot tempers on that article's talk page a few years ago, when the page was first created. Could I have done better at re-igniting those hostilities than getting you to direct me to throw the page back at the antagonists, thus ensuring that no one would first consider, at a remove, the best available options for the article and the project.

My conspiracy is complete. I have deviously managed to blacken my name (ooops ... when did that become part of my plot?), prevent a proactive approach, underpin admin support for nationalist edit wars, and waste my time for a few hours the way I always wanted to (didn't I?). So, I give myself up. Grant me one last cigarette and I will be ready for you to lead me into the courtyard to face the firing squad. I shall stand proudly next to my fellow conspirator, the tribunal article, and shall not blink as you execute the sentence. (Evil chuckle and conspiratorial hand-rubbing: 'Heh, heh, heh, little did you know that being executed, too, was part of my evil master plan'.) — Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: Discuss on the talk page, get a consensus there, then act. The rest is silence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If I do that and no one responds, say, within a week, would my sole vote there to seek advice here then count as a consensus to do that? BTW, your user name seems apposite. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you attempt to start a discussion there, and in the very unlikely event that no one responds after a reasonable amount of time, I think you are in the clear to be Bold and try your change. Just be ready for the deluge of responses it may bring on, and remember that the paradigm is WP:BRD: be Bold, get Reverted, then Discuss. Don't revert back if someone objects to your action, engage in discussion: you do not create a new status quo with a Bold move.

Regarding your parting remark,if you think that I don't know beans about surviving on Misplaced Pages, just go ahead and ignore my advice and see what happens. After all, personally experienced empirical results are the most convincing lesson. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Allrighty, just on the remote off-chance that I really didn't express this clearly enough the first time: I am not proposing changes. I have no proposal or agenda in mind at all. I don't want admin endorsement for anything. I am seeking advice from an admin on what might be a way of moving ahead so the article doesn't just die on the vine. I am not going to be BOLD. There is nothing to be BOLD about. My sole concern is to not leave an orphaned article behind, shrugging my shoulders and assuming this is someone else's responsibility.

If the metaphorical gun on your hip is weighing heavy and tempting you to do the sheriff bit, go ahead. It ain't a threat that will put me off. What are you gonna trash me for? Disagreeing with your 'assessment' of the situation? I am acting in good faith. I am astonished - no, gobsmacked - that a request for advice has become this bizarro assumption that I want to pursue some hidden agenda, waste everyone's time and that I'm looking for a 'showdown' just so an admin can smack me upside the head. Take a break, then a reality check. Remove your preconceived notions about my intentions and look again at this one simple statement: I want advice. And the bureaucratic, shoulder-shrugging response that I should go somewhere else for that advice isn't convincing because the one thing I have thought about carefully is where to seek that advice: from a senior Misplaced Pages contributor, not from a forum where ethnic tensions are high.

This whole thing has snowballed into some absurd and meaningless confrontation because every admin involved in this thread since Skomorokh has simply assumed bad faith. Isn't that a breach of one of your cardinal rules? Or have I misunderstood and asking for advice from an admin is now against the rules? Oh, and the parting remark was intended to convey the message that you know beans about my intentions, principally because you haven't, thus far, tried to understand them. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Islamic POV-pusher

Zubair71 (talk · contribs) has been pushing an Islamic POV into the Qur'an article, taking stuff such as "Muslims regard the Qur’an as the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood," and turning it into "The Qur’an is the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood." He's also been censoring well sourced information (a work cited in the Cambridge companion to the Qur'an) just because it doesn't support his POV. He accuses me of vandalism and POV pushing for undoing his POV pushing. I'm actually trying to work with the only other editor involved so far on making the article neutral. I've had it with Zubair71. He's been blocked for POV pushing before, and clearly doesn't get that this isn't a website to push any worldview. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson has already done five reverts in one article "Quran" during the last 24 hours (in 1 day). It is only he, who has reverted my useful NPOV edits. None of the other editors of this very important article has shown disagreement on my edits. Infact, it is User:Ian.thomson who is just reverting any useful edits to push his personal or Christians' POV. I already has mentioned all details on the discussion page of the article. Zubair71 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Ian.thomson's edits are correct. WP tries not to take a stance on the truth value of particular religious statements. Suggesting that the queeran is proof of anything is a misunderstanding of the WP reliable source guidelines (mainly because the thing is an obvious fabrication, at the level of the Mormon bible). Sources that assert their own reliability are not reliable. Negi(afk) (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We should just ban all religious people from editing this website, ya know what I mean? Negi(afk) (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To Zubair71: "useful NPOV edits"? How is treating Islamic beliefs as universal facts not POV? As for your accusations of me pushing a POV, I have a log showing that I push against Christian POVs, and you have yet to show any examples of me pushing a Christian POV. The other editors have been sitting with their thumbs up their asses, and they haven't been disagreeing with me reverting you. When you reported me for edit warring, the admin didn't block me and said you were becoming a disruptive editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To Negi, I'm religious, I think it's more that any editor who can't allow others to hold to a worldview different from than their own that should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look over the recent changes to that page, and yes, Zubair71, you are trying to push Islam as being correct - changing it to so that Islamic beliefs are presented as fact, and adding extra unsourced comments about how good the Qu'ran is. So to you, stop it, or you'll be on the receiving end of a block for POV-pushing. And to both of you, stop the edit-warring - edit-warring is never acceptable, even if you're right, and 3RR can only be set aside for things vandalism and blatant BLP violations, not for POV-based content disputes. The best thing to do in such cases is revert a couple of times at most, and talk to the other editor - on the article Talk page or their own Talk page. Then if that doesn't work, bring it here. The article is being closely watched now, so we'll stop any further disruption. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And to Negi, suggesting that all religious people be banned is just as wrong as condemning all Muslims because of the actions of Al-Quaeda, or all Christians because of the actions of the crusaders (or Fred Phelps!). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess Negi was kidding. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Err, is "Suggesting that the queeran is proof of anything" a typo? His recent Talk page track record suggests it's not a typo - shouldn't be revdel'd?DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

At least, the proposal to ban religious people looks ridiculously funny to me. No comments on the rest of his contribution. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't warrant a revdel (if it did, now all of these edits to ANI would need to be revdel'd as well). It does, however, sound like this editor is requesting a block for themselves. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's completely different from the rest of this thread. In what way is "queeran" not "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", particularly as it manages to be both gratuitously insulting to muslims and homophobic at the same time (quite a feat!). DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't understand who one can have a NPOV article about religion at all. If you assign the proper weight to all sources, then that would lead to a Wiki-article one any religion having to say that this religion is nonsense. So, at least to some degree, all Wiki-articles on religious subjects violate the NPOV rule. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, no - it is not the aim of Misplaced Pages to present any judgment at all on whether a religion is true or false. We should present sourced information on the documented histories of religious movements, and present sourced descriptions of what they believe, without trying to deduce whether or not they are correct -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Z71 is now accussing IT of vandalism so could do with a stern word from an admin about civility William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And he has immediately blanked it, but he's had the warning and has effectively acknowledged that he's read it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, actually, I see he had already had a number of warnings and had blanked them - no need for further action at the moment, I don't think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is, I would say, indicative of a significant conflict between this editor's editing outlook and the interests of the 'pedia. S.G. _ping! 16:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's just a bit of frustration after being labeled an "Islamic POV-pusher" - it's easy for a disagreement like this to become quickly polarized, and we need to make allowances for that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

one edit summary and second edit summary and another third summary what will you say about User:Ian.thomson ? Thanks. Zubair71 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A lapse of politeness from both Ian and Zubair but I still think Ian is correct in the POV issue. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree - that's a regrettable lapse too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Same with the above. In fact any religion, true or false, can call themselves "the true (and only) religion" and call others as fakes. E Wing (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: And I think the edit summary is just from pent-up/accumulated frustration. If I were him, I'll just revert those edits as vandalism. Also, for both POV-accused editors (especially User:Zubair71), please see WP:Religion. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I meant his warnings were bullshit. Religion didn't factor into my actions (boy howdy would my grandfather agree). I already keep a list to show that I suppress Christian POVs, it's POV-pushing that I have a problem with. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter harrassment

User:HCPUNXKID

• HCPUNXKID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been edit warring on 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests for some time and has already been blocked once. He has continued his combative editing style and furiously reverts anyone who makes an edit to be neutral as if he owns the article per WP:OWN. Many try to discuss the issue with him but he always chooses to continue edit-warring and making false accusations. TL565 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing that catches my eye is the excessive use of the word vandalism, which seems to be bloody common these days while we even have a policy on the situations where it is appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be long-term edit warring by HPCUNXKID. The edit history at 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests since 29 March shows him re-adding a large block of material seven times. This material is reverted out each time by a variety of other editors. Clearly he does not have consensus for his changes. He was blocked ten days ago for edit warring on the same article. Afterwards he left this comment for the admin who blocked him ('Thanks for the blocking!'). Though his account has existed for two years, he seems unwilling to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that the articles related to the Western Sahara generate large discrepancies. But it is not fair because the user add information, I think that even well-referenced, that disagree with his position being accused of vandalism. For example, the user Yusuf ibn Tashfin made personal attacks on another users here, but was not blocked. Why yes HCPUNXKID block it? However, I do not think the blocking is a solution. But look because some are accused of vandalism and not others, and because some are blocked and others not. I think it makes sense to block the edits on the article 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests to avoid edit war and continue arguing about the same, to reach agreement. To accuse of vandalism and block users, we will not solve anything. Thanks and regards. MauriManya (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that he has already engaged in edit-warring and pretty much claimed ownership of an article. I assume your his buddy, but let me tell you that many many users have tried to discuss with him, but he never listens. Only his POV matters and will revert anyone trying to make a compromise. It has nothing to do with vandalism (which he falsely accuses), it is long term edit-warring and combative attitude. He has also personally attacked me plenty of times. A longer block seems to be the only choice and is better than letting this continue. TL565 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that he is doing, again, the same thing for which he was blocked a few days before. This user is closed to any consensus, he considers his PoV as the truth and accuses of vandalism people who consider his edits as PoV or revert these non-consensual edits.

Imho, an admin, maybe before blocking him, should warn him that this kind of comportment is clearly aggressive and that we can't participate by this way to a collaborative project like WP.

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is simply incredible. This is RETALIATION. How curious that the only two users who had reverted my edits on the article (Omar-Toons & TL565) are the same that had pushed to block me for the discussion on the 2010-2011 Middle East & North Africa revolts. They had never entered or contributed to the article until my blocking. How would you call that?. I would call it vengeance or retaliation, simply. Then, the lies. When they say "anyone who had tried to discuss" anyone means only that 2 users, who are coordinated to delete as much information as possible. There's no discussion with them, simply they delete as much as they can, review the edits. They tried to avoid the information I searched on the 2010-2011 Middle East & North Africa revolts, and finally some good users tried to reach consensus adding a new subsection including NOT MY POV, but a POV by relevant sources. That's the difference, some try to construct, others to destruct. On this concrete article, they accussed me of WP:OWN because the whole majority of the article was wrote by me. OK, but in opposition to them, I had accepted without problems the few info and sources given by Omar-Toons, for example. As they arent capable to bring more information or sources, do I have to delete the info I got to made it "more balanced"??. Come on, thats not neutrality, that's censorship. There are several examples of lack of good faith by Omar-Toons in this article. As can be seen on the history, he had changed in near all the article the term "Sahrawi" (refering for example to "Sahrawi sources in X" or Sahrawi human rights organizations) to "POLISARIO" (POLISARIO sources), when clearly not all the Sahrawi people are member of the POLISARIO. Is that a NPOV??? Of course not, its a political-driven personal POV. He had also practiced Source Gambling, as can be seen on the Smara youth clashes subsection, when the sources talk about "Moroccans" and "Sahrawis", he changed it to "pro-Moroccans" and "pro-Sahrawis". It is not my opinion, but what the sources stated!!. More examples, now double standars, he claimed that Afrol News is not a "neutral" source, but it seems that Jeune Afrique is "neutral" to him. Another example, one of the excuses given to remove relevant sourced material, is that is "not related", of course, not related according to their own POV, without giving reasons to exclude it. Other excuse is that the information is "not relevant", but of course the relevance is decided by them, for example the incidents at the WSF Dakar 2011 between the Sahrawi & Morocan delegations is not relevant, but remarking the political affiliation of a French politician is so relevant to them. I had invite them twice to contribute to improve the article, but that couldnt be done by deleting the information wich we personally dont like. That's not improving, but destroying. As I said, for the actions and attitude of this 2 users and some of their friends (It seems that ultimatelly what counts is how many friends you had in WP instead of having good sources or improve articles), I see that they dont have good faith, as this is simply a continuation of the harassment that began on the 2010-2011 Middle East & North Africa, where curiously I was not allowed by some users to put the Unbalanced tag that I had to admit in this article. More double standars, it seems that some users had more rights than others. As it can be seen comparing versions of the Sahrawi article, the result of their revertions is that they had erased more that 20 sources, making the article poorer. Is that a NPOV?? I will continue to edit the article to add it as much information as I can, and I exhort them again to contribute to the article with sources and information, instead of trying to ruin an article because political POVs or personal differences with other users.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I just want to post a few links to the two precedent threads on admin's board and the precedent discussions on WP talk pages (these talks are related to this issue) to let admins see how it is hard to contribute to a project while HCPUNXKID persists on adding his PoV.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

April Fools' Day article

So I remove a ginormous example farm from April Fools' Day, explaining quite clearly in my edit summary that there's "no rhyme or reason to what is and isn't included". And now, not one but two editors blindly plow through my edits with a click of the undo button — never explaining why they undid me. First of all, I'd like to know — am I right in removing this? It had been tagged as an example farm for 11 months and had only continued to get longer and longer over time. Looking at User:Mikeymike2001's contribs, it seems he's gotten a lot of warnings for blindly reverting others' edits, but has done nothing about it. Mikeymike2001 at the least should be put to a stop. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but add me as another person who has reverted you. That information has been in that article for years, and if you think it should be removed, the first place you should have gone after the first person reverted you, was the talk page, not another revert, per WP:BRD.--JOJ 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion opened. I don't believe in BRD because every time I try to D, no one ever joins me in the D. Even when I beat the D over their heads, they still BLATANTLY refuse to discuss anything with me, ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? Bold - Revert - Re-revert - Touching 3RR - ANI/AIV? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually what that sounds like is that you want Bold-Revert-Discuss why everyone else is wrong.JOJ 21:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The examples certainly overwhelm the article. However, the links to the articles of the most well known examples certainly offer some encyclopedic value. Personally, I would recommend creating List of notable April Fools' Day pranks and moving over the bulk of the referenced (anything not referenced or not related to an actual article should be deleted). Then leave a hatnote with a summary paragraph in the April Fools' Day article. Agne/ 21:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Mikeymike2001 does seem to have a habit of reverting without edit summaries. Another example of this behavior can be found here.--Rockfang (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: What on earth are you doing? You're deleting valid content. Even worse, you've broken 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes he did. Wow, seems that there may be a 3RR report in order.--JOJ 01:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Nope -- one edit, 3 reverts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? At one point, obviously, the article didn't contain this content. Therefore, he's reverted back to this prior state 4 times now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a grey area. Clearly a first edit adding content isn't a revert, so if you classify a first edit removing content as a revert then the rules become incongruous for the different types of edits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR is just a line drawn in the sand. He was obviously edit warring, if not officially breaking the 3RR rule.--JOJ 14:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are probably too many examples, and a spinoff article might be better. But an edit summary of "screw it" is no more useful than the default provided by an undo. And the OP's argument against BRD, on the grounds that he can't get his way, says a lot about the OP here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find TenPoundHammer's explicit refusal to follow WP:BRD troubling. If this is the way this user edits on all of the articles they're working on, I suggest a 1RR restriction. Edit-warring is NOT the way to handle content disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenbay1313 forum shopping

As you can see from his contributions it appears as if this SPA registered solely to oppose another editor Ronn Torossian (talk · contribs) (who it turns out hasn't made any edits at all) Ravpapa (talk · contribs) on the BLP article Ronn Torossian based on this one edit and has posted to numerous boards to spuriously attack the other, including Requests for comment, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and the WP:BLPN noticeboard. What should be done to curb the forum-shopping? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment this user appears to have been warned about this earlier today -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How else do I receive a forum if the same users seem to continually be violating BLP ? These users open up Misplaced Pages to a possible lawsuit from the subject of the article. Am not meaning to break rules simply want eyes to review site. 199.19.186.9 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can Editors simply review the article ? Its a living litigious person whose bio has sources which arent permitted per Wiki guidelines. 199.19.186.9 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually warned this editor (who is obviously also the IP above) several days ago , and spelled out for them the proper channels to make their voice(s) heard. Obviously my suggestion didn't take. Dayewalker (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As well as the giveaway SPA interest in Ron Torossian and his company 5WPR, this IP and account are also exhibiting (including here in this ANI discussion) some of the telltale stylistic giveaways that were shared by most of the accounts blocked as sockpuppets in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive (there's yet another SPI open right now, in addition to those in that archive). To add to WP:LEGAL, WP:COI, and occasional edit warring, there's also a request open regarding this sockfarm at WP:CCI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the forum-shopping and account-hopping going on related to Torossian and 5W have consumed the time of now close to a dozen regular editors over the last two weeks, and has passed the point of disruption imo. The Interior (Talk) 22:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've opened up a related thread, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Community ban proposal for Babasalichai. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This may be a silly question... but is there any merit to the BLP complaints? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I had my doubts about it because usually the NPOV is specifically the POV that doesn't require an army of socks to push it. Then I checked the article. Yes, it contains negative material, but it all appears to be properly sourced - I randomly checked a few sources to see whether the article is faithful to them, and found nothing to complain about. If there's something wrong, it's in the sources themselves - however, there are several different sources so it's not likely. My personal verdict is that the article is sufficiently neutral, but please elaborate further if you feel I'm wrong. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, This started as a promotional piece. But after a number of AfD's it was decided that the NYT article proved the subject marginally notable. As a result it ended up being properly sourced but like the sources - not positive about the subject. I would hope this might serve as a warning to other PR firms, but they probably think there's no such thing as bad publicity... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The gripe seemed to be about sourcing. But if the sourcing has been fixed, then that's pretty much of a wrap. The risk of creating a promo page on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", is that anyone can edit it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment If any sourcing issues have been dealt with and we are only using high quality sources it sounds like the most likely BLP issue that could be here is WP:UNDUE. On the face of it, the amount of content on this doesn't look to bad, perhaps the bigger issue is the lack of content on anything else. (Unfortunately that's often a problem since as I guess any PR person knows controversy sells so the media love it so it tends to be a lot easier to find sources about controversy.) However this has been at WP:BLP/N multiple times so I would suspect these issues are being or have been considered so I wouldn't worry about it too much. I will say the IP hopping, sockpuppetry and whatever isn't likely to be helping convince people there's anything here worth looking at. As others have said, this is perhaps also a helpful reminder to some that wikipedia isn't a PR website and so not everything is going to be positive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging from the amount and variety of sources concerning the issue I'm pretty sure that they are notable because of their negative image. Not saying that we shoudn't add positive stuff if it's found, just that we shouldn't force ourselves to "balance" the article by removing negative publicity they obviously have. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. There appears to be some suggestion It isn't correct. For example, I doubt their negative image was the cause of their selection as 'Semi-finalist 2010 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of Year'. I'm not sure how significant that is but the existence of the award is mentioned at suggesting it's not completely irrelevent. I've also seen suggestions in the talk page from people other then the sockpuppet farm they are considered significant in the field. In fact if the sole claim to notably is the negative publicity, I would suggest an AFD since the sourcing doesn't suggestion it's really enough to be the sole reason for an article. Notably there is a NYT profile from 2005 which discusses him and while it does discuss his sometimes controversial style it's not inherently negative. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks he is relevant for owning a PR agency not for Israel work. Why isnt that the bulk of the article ? He was semi finalist for 2010 Ernst & Young Award and none of the positive PR content is profiled there. Even the Israel work is inaccurately referenced ? He represented both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert & Benyamin Netanyahu when they were Prime Ministers: http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback

That isnt included and article makes him sound extreme. Works with Mayor of Jerusalem in 2009 is that relevant and thats not included but negative comments from a random Rabbi is ? http://www.trcb.com/news/israel/general/mayor-of-jerusalem-nir-barkat-to-hold-press-conference-on-the-13377.htm http://newsblaze.com/story/2009032411430200002.pnw/topstory.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10029606.html Torossian is noteable for owning a PR agency and ask editors here to please review his page and what it was before Ravpapa edited. There is human decency and BLP issues here. greenbay1313 (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Our friend Greenbay has made several threats that legal action against Misplaced Pages is imminent. We should be aware that the subject of the article, Ronn Torossian, has a history of entertaining lawsuits on a variety of subjects.

On the one hand, there is nothing libellous in the article, it is all based on reliable sources, and it is, IMHO as one who has done a bit of investigation of the subject, an accurate reflection of Torossian's life and work. On the other hand, in order to avoid litigation, perhaps the best course would be simply to delete the articles on Ronn Torossian and 5WPR. I realize this would be pretty contrary to just about everything Misplaced Pages stands for, but I would hate to be the one, as one of the principle authors of the current version, to cost Misplaced Pages a bundle in legal fees. Is this something for the Foundation to be involved in? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Any litigation would be unfounded, as the article is sourced from several newspapers etc - they would have to be sued as well. Removing the article is not good in my opinion. I think that the best solution here is comparison & compromise: Greenbay can draft their own version of the article on their user space, and when it's done, it can be compared to the current version and see which is more reliable (sourcing etc) and neutral. User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox would be a good place for this, provided the link so they'll find it. Any objections? Zakhalesh (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Litigation will surely not be unfounded as the articles absolutely do not state accuracy and are single articles which wont hold up.

Our Jerusalem never ever worked to push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem as The Forward States. Someone took out citizens now and came up with their own definition. Its libelous and very inaccurate and I imagine would do damage to Torossian's co-founders of Our Jerusalem, 2 current Members of Knesset both of whom he's recently held press events with them with and one would venture would support his offline legal activities as this statement is damaging to them. INACCURATE AND WRONG AND SLANDER. READ THE JERUSALEM POST or any of the other sources: THIS IS WHAT OUR JERUSALEM WAS: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. Why not use This source ? Additional sources: Sources on Our Jerusalem (from current Deputy speaker of Knesset with whom he co-founded organization) http://www.dannydanon.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=26 During that time, Danon founded the ‘Our Jerusalem’ organization, which focused on strengthening the bond between Israeli citizens and Jerusalem. http://christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/mar98/briefs.html http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/Apr-06.htm NONE OF THESE SOURCES SAY WHAT IS CLAIMED THERE ALL LIES AND LIBEL AND SLANDER

Where is any proof that Torossian is a supporter of Israel ? They are clients of the company. Lead should be changed. Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."If allen speaks about 5W why would that and the next sentence be on Torossian personal page ?

Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. (THEY ARE CLIENTS - ANY SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE ?) - Who says Torossian works closely with Christian supporters of Israel - Clients of the firm.

read the source regarding why Torossian opposed Netanyahu its not as you state. Am writing to protect Misplaced Pages as yes the subject has a long history of litigation and this would likely assist him as he would claim anti-Israel activity. Why not fix it rather than be inaccurate ? One statement cant be used against a living person if theres any doubt of its accuracy. This also is compunded by the fact that Torossian represented both Ehud Olmert & Benyamin Netanyahu when they were Prime Ministers: Is that relevant ? http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback And the info clearly is biased to include only Israel info. Why not clean it up and avoid this unnecessary battle. Simply review the Torossian page. greenbay1313 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

At suggestion of users posted a proposed Torossian article here for compromise. Welcome feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threats, Or At Least The Chilling Effects

This entire matter is getting ridiculous. Greenbay1313 has now posted this comment where he states

"Also at your request asked Torossian to contact you. I have urged him not to take legal action as you are accurate that he is litigious and has often used lawsuits to accomplish business goals. Would hate for wikipedia to have an unnecssary lawsuit due to libel."

Two minutes later, he posts this on Ravpapa's page.

"Should this matter not be rectified amiciably I'd venture Torossian will resort to legal means immediately."

Followed less than an hour later by this ...

"You arent leaving this guy with any choices but to take outside legal action. Subpoenas here will work against all who contributed to the page and damaged."

Greenbay1313 has done this before with vague legal threats, but always speaking as if the subject might sue. These diffs seem to show he's got a connection with the subject, and is directly attempting to use the chilling effect of a threatened lawsuit to influence editors to leave his versions alone.

And it's working. I doubt I'll edit them again. I would suggest this account and all sockpuppets be blocked, and both pages be locked down. Dayewalker (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. There's a big difference between expressing concern and making threats. The guy is in violation of the legal threats rule and needs to be blocked until or if he rescinds such threats. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks: Its libelous statements. All of you are commenting plenty on sockpuppets and the like but why is noone commenting on the actual article and its countless slanderous mistakes. User Ravpapa is the one who asked to have Torossian contacted him and stated Torossian was litigous. greenbay1313 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments sound like legal threats, and legal threats are not permitted here. If you've got concerns about specific statements being BLP violations here, then address those concerns specifically, one by one, and without the legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not intending at all whatsoever to make legal threats. Was responding to User Ravpapa who initially stated Torossian was litigous. I dont know what he will do and I am simply trying to protect Misplaced Pages. Is this the forum to raise concerns or should they be done as they have been on Torossian and 5WPR page ? Have raised the repeated issues which exist on torossian page there are many inaccuracies (seperate from the complete lack of balance). greenbay1313 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Information inaccuracies should be discussed on the article talk page. Cease all references to libel and slander, and just focus on verifiability and sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you folks mind reviewing the talk page regarding these issues? Wont raise libel and slander. Am I permitted to post and ask new Editors to review so its not same people ? greenbay1313 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right here and now, please list your top 3 specific sentences in the article that you consider to be inadequately referenced, and why. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that he is noteable for owning a PR agency and named to Ernst & Young noteable list and winning every 40 under 40 award so the article isnt balanced, specific sentences inaccurately referenced:

1 - The reference of pushing Arabs out of Jerusalem is attributed to The Forward and its factually inaccurate and 1 source (which has been changed multiple times by same users). Such a movement in israel does not exist. Accurate version would come below: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. 2 - In the lead it states Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They are clients where is a source stating he is an active supporter - and similar further into the piece with Christian supporters of Israel. 3 - Torossian work makes him seem as a fringe extremist - In reality he has worked for Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel, current Mayor of Jerusalem and Likud Party http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 has has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback He has also trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ greenbay1313 None of those are deemed important enough for the page. But some no name Reform Rabbi criticism is included ? Thats not noteable at all. He works with ruling government folks of course someone may criticize but its surely undue balance. Folks you got upset about sockpuppets that doesnt mean the page can be so off. Thanks so very much for the attention. Appreciate and Thank you. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, the experts need to weigh in here. Never mind the side issues, focus on content: Do any of these complaints have merit? If so, this discussion should perhaps be closed here and should go back to the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The legal threats seem at the moment to center around the nature of the organization Yerushalayim Shelanu, which is described in the article as "according to Nathaniel Popper writing in The Forward, worked to push Arabs out of Jerusalem". While it is unclear what wording would satisfy Greenbay, here is what the sources say about Yerushalayim Shelanu:

---

"Torossian, 34, is proud of his right-wing political beliefs. When he lived in Israel after college, he founded an organization called Yerushalayim Shelanu, or Our Jerusalem, which worked to push Israeli Arabs out of Jerusalem. (Nathaniel Popper, "Birthright Scored for Picking P.R. Firm Tied To Scandal, Hard Right Politics", Forward August 19, 2009)

---

"After college, Torossian moved to Israel, where he got his first taste of his future career on the front lines of activism. He founded his own organization, Yerushalayim Shelanu, or Our Jerusalem, with two young friends, and discovered he had a knack for attracting media attention. The organization’s boldest stunt came when they led a phalanx of bulldozers to Har Homa to reclaim for Jews a disputed plot of land in a Palestinian area of East Jerusalem." (Nathaniel Popper, "Publicist Scores With Rappers, Right-wing Politicians", Forward, April 2 2004)

---

"Working closely with Ateret Cohanim is Yerushalayim Shelanu ("Jerusalem is Ours"), a new group of mainly secular Jews founded one year ago to "ensure a united Jerusalem under Israel." Fifteen of its members escorted 3 Jewish families into the house of American Jewish philanthropist Irving Moskowitz at Har Hatzeitim (Ras Al-Amud) last year. Several were injured in the ensuing Arab riot, while others faced the scores of international press which descended on the site. Recently, they have demonstrated peacefully at Har Homa and Orient House.

"A visit to Orient House was marked by friendly glances between our tour host, Ronn Torossian of Yerushalayim Shelanu, and a guard at the complex gate. Torossian related they knew each other from a recent protest when his group "kindly chained their gate shut." Yerushalayim Shelanu is demanding Israel shut down Orient House, efforts complicated by then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres' secret 1993 letter to the PLO pledging to maintain the status quo of Palestinian institutions in east Jerusalem as part of the original Oslo deal. Orient House is one of as many as 25 sites reportedly operating as PA ministry offices in Jerusalem in violation of Oslo. Among these sites is said to be office space in the American Colony Hotel used by the PA's West Bank security chief Jabril Rajoub for various activities of his security apparatus in Jerusalem." ("Jerusalem is Ours", Middle East Intelligence Digest, May 1998, Vol 9 No 5)

---

"During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem." (Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, "One on One: 'It's all about shaping a story'", Jerusalem Post, August 5, 2009)

In sum, I think we are on pretty solid ground when we describe Yerushalayim Shelanu as an organization that works to push Arabs out of Jerusalem. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"pretty solid ground" - Why is that ? None of the sources above say that the organization pushes Arabs out of Jerusalem ? Its factually incorrect and absolutely wrong and absolutely slanderous.

Why not use what Jerusalem Post says about "a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem." Furthermore, using simple logic if the man works now with Mayor of Jerusalem and both former Prime Ministers wouldnt it seem impossible that he worked on such an extreme mission as stated in current article ? Its wrong and incorrect.

Amazingly more incorrect and unsourced material was added overnite - what is the source he worked for Binyamin Elon ? he worked for Tourism Ministry. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, "One on One: 'It's all about shaping a story'", Jerusalem Post, August 5, 2009)

Folks there are a number of major BLP issues as a user seems out to malign Torossian. 1 article states not many blue chip clients and every other feature states otherwise. 1 single source should be removed immediately. Please assist. Also no source regarding especially Israeli clients, nor about the Our Jerusalem issue which Ravpapa himself temporarily corrected and then changed back. These are serious issues. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest using as a compromise (which I still object to) the Our Jerusalem description which Ravpapa used in his sandbox page ? Its not libelous and not as inaccurate (I'd fight about how Jerusalem is defined, but as you have it now is libelous and inaccurate). Torossian works for the Mayor of Jerusalem and Prime Ministers - The statement of kicking arabs out of Jerusalem is like saying to kick muslims out of america, instead of saying muslim terrorists. If you intend on keeping Arabs, so say the Palestinian Authority, or PLO (political leadership)- Not Arabs as blanket statement. Its wrong and dangerous. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Muslim terrorists? You want to describe families that have lived in their homes for a couple generations as terrorists? I don't think there is any hope in working with someone who pushes that type of POV. As for Torossian, there doesn't seem any doubt that he has worked to push Palestinians out of East Jerusalem(1,2). The same Irving Moskowitz that Torossian mentions in the first link is the man who has used Israeli courts to claim ownership of Palestinian homes, and replacing them with Israeli settlers.(1,2). And with that quick search, I am sure there are more than enough reliable sources out there for the statement you object to, as well as expanding on it. Dave Dial (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did I call families in homes Muslim terrorists. Nowhere. Using courts and replacing them with settlers is much different than kicking Arabs out of Jerusalem. The guy is a PR guy not NOT a Israel pro. greenbay1313 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You stated "The statement of kicking arabs out of Jerusalem is like saying to kick muslims out of america, instead of saying muslim terrorists", which is linking the ejections of Palestinians from their homes and replacing them with Jewish settlers to America deporting "Muslim terrorists". How is that not comparing families in Jerusalem to terrorists? Unless I'm reading it wrong. Also, how is using Israeli courts to evict Palestinian inhabitants who have lived in their homes for 55+ years different? I think "pushing" is a very lenient word for this, as the United Nations recognize Jerusalem as being occupied, which would make any Israeli court decision null and void. In any case, this is leading to a content dispute and doesn't address the blinding problem. Which is your socking, threats and disruption. Dave Dial (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority is not the Palestinians nor Arabs. Its a government entity. This is not a debate about Jerusalem its a debate about what media says on a BLP of a living person. This is a PR person who is prominent because of PR not because of 1997 activities. Muslims being kicked out of America is different than Muslim terrorists being kicked out of America, just as kicking Arabs out of Jerusalem is different than kicking the PLO out of Jerusalem (as they were). greenbay1313 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Why has this report turned into a content discussion? One thing that has come to light though is that Greenbay1313 is a SPA who edits tendentiously, likes to play semantics, treats wikipedia like a battleground and definitely cannot be collegial. --Blackmane (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet Another Legal Threat

(OD) Well, the argument from the article's page has now extended over to this page as well. Meanwhile, Greenbay1313 continues to use vague legal threats in what I would seriously consider at attempt to silence discussion . Saying "Dearest Sir you are the one who wrote about Torossian's legal fights continually. You'd be well pressed to remember them." is clearly an attempt to intimidate through legal threats. He's promised not to do this twice before, but he obviously doesn't intend to stop. Dayewalker (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Left them a very strong note to the effect of "stop saying things like that please" on their talk page :) --Errant 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is the third time in recent edits that a warning has been given. Dayewalker (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Palazzolo and Misplaced Pages's unwitting defamation of a living man

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Text_removed_from_article_on_May_28.2C_2009

Regarding Palazzolo and the biography written about him (see above) by Don Calo (Mafia Expert), I wrote this originally at the Admin Noticeboard but was told to open a new thread here. This case is very complicated and we have been batting it round for a while. I don't wish to be tiresome or slanderous because that is precisely what I am complaining about, viz. Palazzolo. But I do want him to get a fair, transparent hearing, without bias or prejudice, from which he has suffered for nearly 30 years, and which Don Calo perpetuates because he uses newspapers as his source for information.

Regarding what has been written before there is and never was a legal threat to Misplaced Pages. Let me clarify my purpose, which was to observe that the legal documentation fron the last 30 years gives a precise record of the case for and against Palazzolo. When I mentioned lawyers it was with a view to collecting and collating that mountain of documentaion they have, for an arbitrator to review. Right now Palazzolo is taking the Sunday Independent of South Africa to court. They quote Misplaced Pages as a source, who use newspapers as their source. So there is a quite obvious loop of misinformation here. Can you see that? For the purposes of validation and verification of information (of which there is a mountain on Palazzolo) I wish to put his side of it, fully documented and proven.

Newspapers often do not substantiate their stories. They publish what they wish and Don Calo uses them in turn, as his sources. Which creates an enormous problem for Palazzolo which rests squarely, by virtue of their size and pervasiveness, on Misplaced Pages's broad shoulders.

Don Calo and co report allegations and facts that are unfounded and unsubstantiated and most often, amazingly, have been thrown out of court as inadmissable. And if they don't report it directly it is implied, suggested or inferred. They say palazzolo was "allegedly" in the Mafia, or traded in drugs, or supplied arms to the apartheid regime, or framed Pik Botha with pictures of a black prostitute. Which leaves the unknowing reader with the strong impression that he did those things. In this manner Palazzolo has become cannon fodder for the press and Don Calo, using the press almost exclusively, in his "biography" of him, turns the fire into a bonfire.

It is a fact of human dignity that we get a fair hearing which, sadly, at Misplaced Pages, for complex reasons, Palazzolo is not getting. What to do? We could take the Misplaced Pages article, point by point, allegation by allegation, inference by inference, and I will answer them, backed with legal documentation, including all the judgements made for and against him! Misplaced Pages is not the forum for that, obviously, but until it is done there is no way of knowing the truth about him. And it is into this void that the Press and Don Calo leap, casting their aspersions and defaming (effectively) a living man.

Palazzolo has no fear of an argument about his life in the open, but objects to the veiled aspersions and attacks that have been made on him by the press and, unwittingly, by Misplaced Pages.

How can we deal with this? As for me I am compiling evidence for a biography on him, which is explicitly NOT a hagiography. I will present his case, substantiated by evidence and fact. I wish to do this, to begin with, using the august organ that is Misplaced Pages. There is nothing unreasonable about my demands for transparency and, frankly, a fair shot for a man who has been suffering the arbitrary injustice of the Italian (and South African) judiciary and hounded by the press.

Thank you and I look forward to your reply with instructions as to what to do and where I can make my case.

Alexander Fircks 41.3.128.156 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 41.3.128.156 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 41.3.128.156 (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be saying you want to use your original research in the article, which is not permissible. Court papers etc would be primary sources, and shouldn't be used. Before you go any further with this I suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant Misplaced Pages policy: No Original Research, and, since Misplaced Pages is not the place to correct "the arbitrary injustice of the Italian (and South African) judiciary", you should probably take a look at Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. You say that Misplaced Pages is being used as evidence in a court case. I know nothing about the case but it is extraordinarily unlikely that any court would accept a Misplaced Pages article as evidence. DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It happens. We have a page on it, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages as a court source. The cases where it's noted that the judge acepted the facts presented from wikipedia its because it was a simple definition or uncontroversial history not disputed by the other side. Taemyr (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Filing a report on: User:Seb_az86556

I am -User:Swe41

Reporting-User:Seb_az86556 for abuse and harrasement.

Let me stress that this is not an act of bad faith, or revenge, I HAVE evidence of abuse, and if you look at his discussions page, he did swear at me, so please consider this in a unbiased fashion. Thank you Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• He has been recently found vandalising an article, and that same article was vandalised in the same way, by the same IP address, shortly after that. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Though this is somewhat irrelevant to do with this case, he insulted me by calling me a pest, when I was just having a conversation with another user, which was private, and ordered me to "stop", which i find offensive. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• His Vandalism activity recently has been high, under his IP address obviously, which further backs up my evidence. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• In his discussion page, he swore at me (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Seb_az86556), which i find offensive, and this further implies his crude nature. I also intend to report an abuse claim against him Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you also look at his contributions history-http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Seb_az86556 -nearly all of his contributions made to an article has been requested for deletion, which further backs up my point that he is committing sockpuppetry, as these articles that were all wrongly edited by him were under his IP address, but sometimes not under his username. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, on his discussions page, I warned him that if he continued to swear at me, I would have no choice but to report him, but he started goading me-(quote)"go for it", which I deem to be inappropriate and slightly offensive, since I was only trying to politely warn him. Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, on his discussion's page, he clearly provoked me to filing the report after he swore and refused to let it go. Swe41 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me stress that this is not an act of bad faith, or revenge, I HAVE evidence of abuse, and if you look at his discussions page, he did swear at me, so please consider this in a unbiased fashion. Thank you Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Swe41 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swe41 (talk • contribs)

The stuff above appears to be a direct copy from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Seb az86556, which appears to have some problems as well. Boomerang launch detected? Zakhalesh (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Huge boomerang indeed. And yeah, that's for notifying me and all that... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's not Bite here. New user right? And besides, that investigation is confirmed if I ever saw one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can tell, the only real concern which has been raised in the above "report" is the swearing. Sure, it wasn't very offensive, but if a user asks you to not swear, the best response is always to simply strike what they had issue with, and leave it at that. It is not to provoke them into filing a clearly frivolous report. - Kingpin (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is a copy of the sockpuppet investigations is irrelevant, the accusations still stand...Swe41 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well... Let's talk about the WP:BOOMERANG here in terms of WP:HARASS on Dr.K's talkpage and the whole story before that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! He's annoyed that he's not allowed to put his own theory into Lucid dreaming to give it a chance to catch on! Helpfully, he adds that "the creator of the theory remains unreliable". DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Swe41, if you want anyone to look at this, you'll have to provide some diffs to show this alleged vandalism and alleged abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er, right, and how exactly did shouting "STOP", calling him a "pest", and what he was doing "shit" help to de-escalate the issue, Seb? Really you should know better. - Kingpin (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stop" in bold is not offensive when someone has been warned numerous times over the past two days (see his talk page history). Linking WP:HARASS to "being a pest" gives an explanation of what I mean. "Shit" is what I call it, but won't use again if the user is offended. Threatening me with an SPI... well, I don't know what I should have said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stop" in bold is fine, in all caps (what you actually did) is not acceptable, I suggest you review Misplaced Pages:SHOUTING. Calling another user a pest is a personal attack, and is also not acceptable, despite the circumstances. I'm glad to hear you won't be calling what he's doing "shit" again. What I'm trying to point out here is not that Swe is in the right, it's clear that he is not. But rather that when you find yourself in the right, it is more productive to explain politely and without aggravating the other user, than to effectively laugh at or tease them, because that only leads them to being even more stubborn in their position. The manner in which you convey your message can be as important as the message itself. - Kingpin (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Next time, after someone has been warned for edit-warring, has a final warning for harassment, a final warning for personal attacks, a final warning for original research, one SPI — I'll come to ANI right away and him/her blocked, as I should have. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Swe41 has clearly reached a breaking point, Given the long history of warnings on his talk page it would be safe to assume this is an act of desperation though it is not clear what he hopes to achieve by false sockpuppet investigations and ANI reports. Perhaps Swe41 it would be best to step away from wikipedia for a few hours and calm down then return here and perhaps try work some stuff out? ZooPro 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• I've had a look back on this. As far as I can make out, it started as a content dispute after Swe41 tried to add some new ideas about lucid dreams to the article Lucid dreams. The additions of the ideas, which one of the edit summaries admitted were brand new, were properly removed as being original research and not supported by reliable references. Unfortunately, it looks like we have a new user who felt bitten by that, got into an edit war, and it all went downhill from there. I think Seb perhaps has been a bit bitey, and Swe41 has gone over the top with sockpuppet accusations. But I think this is all down to misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than any malice on anyone's part. I agree with ZooPro - Swe41, you should take a little time off and cool down, and then have a look through the appropriate policy pages which discuss original research and proper sourcing. I see no need for any admin action here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (Struck part of my comment, above - on a closer inspection and after more thought, I think Seb has actually been quite restrained in the face of what is clearly not entirely innocent newbie mistakes as I had first thought -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
  • In terms of boomerang I'd like to add this diff by Swe41 which does show a sort of malice in my point of view. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That was well into the dispute, and though it was indeed wholly unacceptable, I suspect it was more from frustration and anger than premeditated malice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Whatever the justification for this was, it was vicious and harassing for the recipient. Dr.K.  16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Yep, and my sympathy for a "newbie" editor has been diminished following my examination of those further diffs, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That's probably a fair assessment; it is most likely my flaw/fault that I cannot comprehend how someone seems unable to understand so many warnings and still keep going. I expect some sort of bell to ring, but instead the user keeps up the harassment (see diff provided by De728631 above). And admit when it doesn't ring a bell, it eventually drives me nuts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, your frustration is certainly understandable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This person has been on a long campaign. Some examples:

• deleting a section from my talkpage where he asks for a one-time favour to be allowed to publish his not-notable theory on Lucid dreaming
• Threatening to file a report against me
• I warned you not to mess with me.
• dont go to war with me. You will lose.
• another threatening one-liner
• Out of interest, what is your IP address??

Finally, I wish to thank Seb for his assistance in reverting this harassment from my tralkpage. Dr.K.  16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, yes - another edit like those and I think we would be looking at a block. And it's interesting to see that in the first of those diffs, he does actually admit to being the author of the theory he's trying to push -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And I think these diffs (I hadn't connected them properly earlier) make it clear that it isn't just that he doesn't know the ropes - he made it clear that he knew his sources weren't acceptable and that his theory wasn't notable enough for inclusion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. For more details see here; Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Swe41/Archive. Dr.K.  16:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow thats not newbie ignorance that is blatent malice. ZooPro

(FWIW, I need to say this) And this is what drives me nuts. We let someone run wild like that for days, because, y'know, they're "new" and we don't want to bite, so we add warning after warning to the talk page — and when one of us loses it eventually, we chastise the "established" user who "should have known." We seem to assume that new users come from a different planet. If you did similar stuff on this planet in the real world, you'd be called out on it much earlier... Tell me on what planet the above diffs aren't reason for a much earlier block. Can't be this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

^^Wow. Favouritism of the "established" Users. Swe41 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those diffs were reported anywhere, were they? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of them were in the SPI, after that, he was allowed to keep going. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes - I think part of the problem is that this has been disjointed and all over the place, and nobody has brought the whole thing together in one place until now (and ironically, it was Swe41 himself who brought it here). I can see how each individual thing, without seeing the overall picture, might not alone be considered cause for a block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the diff in which he asks me what is my IP address is particularly disturbing and creepy. Dr.K.  17:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And as one more manifestation of the returning flying stick thing, I see he removed the evidence of his own sock report and his block from his Talk page. (Editors are allowed to do that, but it doesn't look good when you then go on to launch spurious sock reports about others) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

^^. Again Zebedee, remember, always assume good faith, remember?? Swe41 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good faith only goes so far - and you lost all assumptions of it once it became blatantly clear that you knew what you were doing was wrong all along -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add to that this diff. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a topic ban is in order. ZooPro 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure that's needed really - we can simply block for repeated OR/RS violations, or repeated edit warring, or repeated harassment, should he do any of them again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

True, I have struck my comment as it is to much effort to go through for something that can be achieved with a block. ZooPro 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself again, I opened this case only to talk about the swearing, shouting, goading and provocation. No other cases were opened against me (eg. Dr.K ), so therefore, everything else is irrelevant. Swe41 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI. When an incident is under review, we review all aspects of it - including the actions of related, semi-related, and (often) entirely unrelated editors. The reporting party is under particular scrutiny. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the background of an ANI case is always relevant, and that background extends to investigating what you were doing that provoked the reaction you were complaining about - And so your prior disruptive and uncivil behaviour was very relevant. You should have a read of WP:BOOMERANG before you think of filing new ANI cases against editors you are in dispute with -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Block requested

This is enough now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we be sure that's him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; look at the contribs: same style of threats, same IP of previous SPI. It's a duck. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, same IP - OK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim Thomson and issues of age reporting

Can we get more eyes at Kim Thomson. It is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but needs broader participation. What we have is a truth versus verifiability problem. Sources list Kim Thomson as age 50 in 2010. People feel in their heart she is much younger. "Circa 1960" is being disputed as WP:OR, but OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. The other argument is that the references must have gotten the information from Misplaced Pages. A third argument for the removal is that birth dates have to be autobiographical, that she has to "out" her own age, or it violates her right to privacy. These issues need more eyes on them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be more of an RfC or Third Opinion matter then requiring admin attention at the moment. ZooPro 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"People feel in their heart she is much younger" isn't calculation, it is guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BLP states that we must not give a date of birth unless it's found in publicly available secondary reliable sources. We don't out people, even celebrities. This woman also does not hold a position where her birthdate could have any legal effect, as it would for a member of the US Senate or the Canadian judiciary. So why are we giving even a range of age until reliable secondary sources chime in? WP:BLP has to come before opinions masquerading as "truth", no matter how dearly held those opinions are. Age is very hard to determine: this editor was carded at the liquor store last night despite being forty-seven years old. --NellieBly (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Long outstanding CFDs

(Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Long outstanding CFDs Timrollpickering (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC) )

Perpetual disruption by Rosanacurso and socks

Since the beginning of March, we've had a basically constant disruption from Rosanacurso (talk · contribs) and their socks. It's been confirmed by checkuser that this editor has been wardriving around their town, creating socks, and causing general problems. One common thread is that they all tend to edit the sandbox, but of course we're not going to protect the sandbox for a long time. You can look at the SPI case archive to see what's been going on, but I'm bringing it up here because we have to do something about it. Checkusers have stated that we can't do any sort of IP blocking since it's all over the place, so that's not an option. Is there anything else we can do? Or are we just going to have a perpetually open SPI case? — HelloAnnyong 17:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One could attempt to gain support for a temporary community ban of some sort, which would allow users to revert-on-sight and bypass WP:3RR. elektrikSHOOS 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I will note that Rosanacurso has created 194 socks within the past 3 weeks. –MuZemike 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread not to enact a community ban (though that's fine on its own), but to see if there's something on a technical level that can be done. Or are we really just relegated to having to constantly RBI? — HelloAnnyong 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the checkusers were right. If there's a wide range of IPs being used there's no way we can block one user without also potentially blocking a large group of helpful users. WP:RBI is the only way to go, though if it persists for some time you could file a report at WP:LTA and see if the users' ISP could be contacted. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great question from HelloAnnyong, is there anything else that can be done, to keep this from happening? It's not really showing any sign of slowing down. The only idea I have, which would only make a marginal difference, would be to semi-protect WT:Sandbox, which seems to attract some of the edits--and this is really a redundant page, anyway. Note that I am not suggesting semi-protecting WP:Sandbox--that's the main sandbox. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Elektrik, contacting ISPs won't help us if the user is driving around town and stealing WiFi from people. — HelloAnnyong 21:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor am I suggesting that would help. However, if most of the vandalism is being performed from one or two locations that use dynamic IPs, the ISPs who provide service to those locations could be contacted for abuse as a last resort. elektrikSHOOS 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I wasn't paying attention to the wardriving aspect. Carry on as if I hadn't said anything. elektrikSHOOS 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How many articles are being affected, other than the sandbox? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BB, it seems to be getting more erratic. At first it was mostly Tea (meal) and Talk:Fish and chips, but it seems some of the accounts since then have moved to other, more random articles. — HelloAnnyong 00:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say more than 20. Here's a sample.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for community ban

And not a temporary one. 112 socks = indef ban, end of story. At the time of the previous ban proposal, I recall that while Rosanacurso had 50+ suspected socks, only one was actually confirmed. When the problem gets that much worse in such a short period of time, you know it's time to eliminate it at its source. --Dylan620 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I re-tagged them all as actual socks, as it's bloody obvious that they all are. –MuZemike 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support a community ban. It's been a while, and at 100+ socks, all of them disruptive, it's clear that this user has no interest in improving the project. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They're just going to be indef-blocked when they show up anyway, so what's the point of a ban? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would be more of a formality at this point than anything. But still, it would allow editors to revert-on-sight, etc. Beyond that I don't really see anything we can do other than WP:RBI. elektrikSHOOS 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I guess it would mean that once they are socked and blocked, their edits can be reverted without requiring any further reason. I'll support, then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - not to mention this has to be the most fucking retarded reason to be wardriving. —Jeremy v^_^v 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I completely agree with the diagnosis of wardriving. With that said, could it be possible that more than one person is involved? There is still massive sockpuppetry, of course. The sock names often refer to students at a particular school--maybe it is actually more than one student at a school. With that said, the edits are so similar that it is easy to believe that it is just one person. Unfortunately, none of this gets at the issue of reducing the incidence of this problem. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is the most pointless use of wardriving in human history. --NellieBly (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alpha Quadrant 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Completely ridiculous. Ban and let editors revert on sight. Heiro 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Kcowolf (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment maybe an edit filter could be developed that stops edits from new accounts from that IP range. That would have much less fallout than a range block. If the person is obstinate enough to keep editing the sandbox consistently, the filter could even notice that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't an IP range that could be used - the editor is driving round and using all sorts of different unsecured wireless networks, so there are lots of IP ranges -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. But the edit filter might be able to figure out the geolocation. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe some of the edits have a common thread, like they are all from the same school ("ITE"?). Or with over 100 SPs, have some IPs come up repeatedly? I am sure this is wardriving, but even a partial block would slow this down. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Catherineyronwode

There is a limit to my patience. "fuck you" is beyond that limit. Catherine has been previously blocked for personal attacks. Rami R 19:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The exchange is here. For the record, there were 18 instances of random, mostly IP vandalism on Sundae on 3rd April before the protection. Fainites scribs 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding. Catherine was working hard on the Sundae article as an IP. Meanwhile there had been significant random IP vandalism that day. Rami R protected the article against IP vandalism. Catherine took umbrage on the assumption that Rami R meant her editing. Rami and another editor have tried to explain the situation to Catherine. Catherine does not appear to have accepted that explanation and still feels aggrieved and insists she personally was called a "persistent vandal", hence the edit summary "fuck you". Daft. No doubt Catherine will see it that way herself when calmer. No admin intervention necessary beyond a message.Fainites scribs 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Y is a personal attack and uncivil discourse a reason to block anyone? 140.247.141.137 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because as we are a collaborative environment we have to be civil to one another. You wouldn't tell your boss to fuck off, and if you told a policeman to fuck off you'd be highly likely to find yourself arrested - and in most countries you'd probably get the shit kicked out of you as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Catherineyronwode's sole block is from 2006, not long after she registered her account. Whether or not there are ongoing civility issues that have not triggered blocks in the meantime, I cannot say. On the other hand, I do find Catherineyronwode's lecturing tone a bit rich: "Rudeness is such a turn-off when your staff consists of volunteers." Indeed.

Sorry, Rami, Misplaced Pages's non-admin volunteers are allowed to curse out admin volunteers for any reason or no reason whatsoever. We can't do anything to help you, because that would be 'abuse' of our 'authority'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a good thing :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok but why are these silly cases of rudeness, uncivil things and personal attacks ok? Are they ok? 140.247.141.137 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not OK ... TenOfAllTrades was injecting some humor. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what User:TenOfAllTrades is talking about; we block people for persistent incivility all the time. In this case, it looks like she mistakenly thought she had been accused of vandalism and prevented from editing. Shortly after that, she logged off (which is exactly what one ought to do when too pissed off to be civil). I don't see any sign that she has read the note on her talk page or this discussion. She probably doesn't know she was mistaken yet. I'd kind of like to give her a chance to understand what happened and apologize, rather than immediately blocking her right now, when she may or may not cause any further problem. Don't you agree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine's complaint seems to be that the article was semi'd and she couldn't use her IP to edit the article anymore. So why wasn't she logged on in the first place? Semi has no effect on an established user ID. Seems to me she grossly overreacted. However, Rami is not faultless here either. "F.U." is not OK in and of itself, but the emotional state of an established and sincere editor has to be taken into consideration. If a redlink or a little-used IP says "F.U.", that's usually trolling, begging for a block. That does not seem to be the case here. The admin and the editor need to have some more dialogue on this. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a note for Catherine on Rami's talk page. Catherine got a little heated but try to apply some understanding to the frustrating situation she was in. This is a "wikiquette alert" situation at worst. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait Rami is an admin? Would someone explain to me then why we're discussing someone on ANI who has not been notified? If the feeling was further contact may just inflame the situation which is the only real reason I can see for failure of notification then this should have been noted in the original message surely? Also is it really fair to say someone should have just logged in when we have no idea if the is a reason they couldn't have logged in, like editing from a computer they do not trust and when in any case policy is clear we do not require users to have an account or use it if they do provided they aren't engaged in abusive sockpuppetry? Wouldn't a far better message have been something like 'I'm sorry that you were unable to edit as an IP, unfortunately as you can see from the history semi-protection was necessary. As you already have an account, hopefully this does not create too much of an inconvenience. If you are unable to log in due to security concerns, you may want to consider creating an alternative account for such situations.' Yes it would have been easier if 'Catherineyronwode' hadn't go so worked up in the first place but remember if you're an admin you are expected to keep your cool even when others don't (or failing that, don't respond). Incidentally I agree with ToAT and others. If the only problem is 'fuck you' which appears to be more reflecting frustration then anything else and was directed at an admin anyway, and the last and sole block for personal attacks was in 2006 when a user had just started editing, at best a WQA. And I would note even if Catherineyronwode doesn't apologise but also doesn't continue I still see no reason to block. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rami notified Catherine a minute after posting here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to Rami, I forgot the discussion was going on in Rami's talk page not Catherine's. However the rest of my statement still stands. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That attitude, Nil Einne, is precisely the problem that I bemoaned in my first comment. Since the 'fuck you' was "directed at an admin anyway", for some reason it counts as less inappropriate or offensive in the minds of some editors—you, apparently, included. Why is that? Why is it that we should be more tolerant of abuse directed at the volunteers our community has judged to be responsible and trustworthy? Why is it less okay to 'fuck you' a non-admin? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rami made this request ;). Given she made the 'fuck you' comment on Rami's talk page, and given it was explained there before that comment that she wasn't the vandal, I'm not sure it was appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the 'fuck you' was appropriate. However just because a comment was inappropriate doesn't mean there's really much that can or should be done about it from an admin point of view (remember this is WP:ANI). In particular, as others have said it's not even clear it was really directed at Rami as opposed to a more general expression of frustration at wikipedia and the people here. And even if it were, while incivil it's quite questionable to call it a personal attack. Note that while the discussions was going on at Rami's talk page you had responded before the 'fuck you' came. And while an attempt may have been made to explain to Catherine that the 'persistent vandal' bit wasn't directed at her it appears it was not understood. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously suggesting a block are they? Rami notified Catherine. I looked into it (see above) and left a message on Catherine's page in which I expressed the view her behaviour had not been appropriate. Fainites scribs 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion over notification, I have struck my comment. Anyway to the main point, bearing in mind this is WP:ANI not WP:WQA (or any of the other places you can go to for non administrative help in dealing with a situation although give the existence of talk page stalkers it's not even clear if even that was necessary) and the original message was 'There is a limit to my patience. "fuck you" is beyond that limit. Catherine has been previously blocked for personal attacks.' Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

IP removing stub templates

Please see 68.199.204.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Don't know if this is some sort of subtle vandalism or what. --Lyncs (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started reverting (TW). This is the first time rollback could come in handy; it's tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done others with rollback. I didn't of course check every single edit and instead presumed the random sampling of what I saw which in every case appeared to be removal of the stub template without discussion and where the article does appear to be a stub represented all the edits. I hope no one bites my head off if it turns out I removed the one constructive edit there somewhere Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should give the user a warning; and if the user continues this behavior - (s)he will need to be blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the edits on the second page as far back as March 23rd ar 19:00ish UTC, and reverted the stub tag removal edits. Please note that on March 23-24' there were a few edits of other types. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot to check if there was another page. Thanks for your help. I have asked the user not to continue to mass remove stub templates from articles which are stubs without discussion and informed them continuing to do so may result in a block. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Good job! --Lyncs (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Madjewelvisor

• Madjewelvisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.26.216.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

User:Madjewelvisor appears to be an account that has been created to WP:EVADE the indefinite block ] placed on User:Rastamouse-ting. Also appears to have been making edits under IP 86.26.216.41, in particular a personal attack here: ]

I will point out however, that conduct has improved in so much as the personal attacks are less offensive in nature, but they do continue as does the constant assuming of bad faith, and general WP:OWN behaviour with regards to Rastamouse. Further thoughts on Talk:Rastamouse#user_Rubiscous_.26_Episodes_data. Rubiscous (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned User Returned

This banned user is apparently back again in a new incarnation...

This guy, who threatened both me and an admin, just keeps creating new accounts...

New edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Rock%26RollSuicide

Here's the sockpuppet investigation of his various old sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gypsydog5150/Archive

His editing pattern: politician - Tom Corbett; rock bands - Van Halen, Poison, and Anthrax, don't leave much room for doubt that this is the same guy.

Looking at the Tom Corbett edit history, it looks like he came out from under his IP cover to avoid an edit protection that was imposed as a result of his anonymous edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tom_Corbett&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He deleted the ANI notice I posted on his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Rock%26RollSuicide&diff=prev&oldid=421890203

John2510 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Old thread (from 11/9/10):

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

Removal of the well sourced text

A user Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has replaced a large piece of text with his own text, and thereby removed relevant and well sourced information from the Communist terrorism article. This removal has been done without proper explanation on the talk page and without adequate edit summaries. The attempts to remove this text has been done before by the same user under dubious pretext, or with a misleading edit summary; they also argued that the sources used by their opponents are "junk" , . However, the discussion on the WP:RSN demonstrated that the Tentontunic's statement that the sources used by their opponents are not reliable, non-mainstream and non-academic was incorrect . The discussion on the WP:NPOVN also demonstrated that the sources Tentontunic seeks to remove are mainstream, and that due weight should be given to them in the article .
It is necessary to note that the article is under the WP:1RR, so repeated removal of the same text, even with the intervals loner than 1 day is the edit warring.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you, in response to this recent removal, attempted to start a conversation with this user? --Jayron32 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the NPOV board most certainly does not back your assertion. And I have used your sources in the rewrite. (did you not notice?) This is another frivolous complaint from a user who has persistently block shopped when he does not get his own way. If he has an issue with my edits to the article he ought really take it up on the article talk page. I will also point out I made it quite clear on the article talk page I was rewriting the sections in question. And that this user making the complaint has also removed well sourced text several times, but I did not go block shopping because of it. Tentontunic (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32. The talk page conversations with this user are tens thousand kilobytes long, and I have no hope that additional conversation will lead to somethong useful. The last massive changes of the article's text has been made without any attempt to discuss it on the article's talk page, and the fact that some (just few) of my sources have been used in the new (truncated) version changes nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic should avoid removing and inserting text while there is disagreement. It amounts to a slow edit war, but it is edit-warring nonetheless. TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how rewriting content so it flows as a decent narrative and is not a disjointed selection of statements is edit warring. If siebert can remove content and rewrite it as he sees fit then I may also do so. I will also point out that TFD has been block shopping also, filing a spurious enforcement request against me. Tentontunic (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And this on top of sieberts constant personal attacks really does take the biscuit. He calls me a liar around 5 times and no action taken, I edit an article he has ownerships issues on and he files this. What a joker. 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how removal of the large number of text, which was supported by good quality references (also removed) can be considered "rewriting". Per WP:3RR it is a revert, and, since this revert is repeated, it is slow edit-warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "liar". Obviously, I never called Teonontunic a liar. However, since some of their statements were false, I characterised them (under "them" I mean the statements, not Tentontunic) accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly accused my of being a liar. And have yet to retract your attacks even when it has been pointed out to you why you were wrong. And as for removal of large sections of text, were? As near as I can see the only content you had inserted which is not currently there was In December 1956, the South Vietnamese communists, had been attacked by Ngô Đình Diệm's troops who initiated a "Anti-Communist Denunciation Campaign" leading to numerous arrests and executions, frequently via beheading or disemboweling. The Communists, who had been driven into remote swamps, decided to revive the insurgency. because it is wrong the insurgency had not ended, so how can it have restarted? Tentontunic (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, since the content removed by Tentontunic (by this edit]) includes, for instance, this fragment:

"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda to deny the partisans' political legitimacy, to locate the Malayan Emergency in a broader context of the Cold War and to preserve a British business interests in Malaya, which would be heavily affected had the British administration conceded that they faced a full scale anti colonial insurgency. Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures. "

it would be probably correct to characterise their last post as false. By writing that I by no means want to characterise Tentontunic themselves. I may provide other examples, however this one is sufficient, in my opinion.

Re " because it is wrong the insurgency had not ended, so how can it have restarted? " Although this is more a dispute over a content, let me point out that this statement is also wrong, because there were (as far as I know) no Communist insurgency in Southern Vietnam before Communists had been attacked by the government.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And the viet minh were? Which I have added to the article in the rewrite. The majority of the content remains the same, it is just easier to read now. You are just block shopping because you want control over this article. You have removed reliably sourced content quite a few times and added content with no consensus, tell me please why you feel I may not do this? Tentontunic (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, by comparing the Tentontunic's version with the previous one it becomes quite obvious who removes a reliably sourced context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not answer my question? Or do you deny removing reliably sourced content? Tentontunic (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral observer who responded to a comment at WP:NPOVN, there appears to be some ownership issues on this article. It seems from some of the comments that there is a patterm of Disruptive Editing per WP:DE in that questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits are repeatedly ignored. It certainly warrants closer examination by a neutral admin. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm also an involved user, I am disappointed that Paul Siebert has taken the "enforcement" route to have his way on content. There are only several active editors at the article at the moment. Requesting enforcement based on contentions of superiority of one's own content and aspersions cast on one's editorial opposition are poor conduct indeed. Editor Paul Siebert has attacked me on the talk page of said article over content I have not even yet created, that is the level of antagonism currently being dispensed to editors even just anticipated to have some alternate editorial POV. FYI, Paul Siebert eventually agreed to wait and see regarding my anticipated edits (see my talk); however, the general pattern of attempting to control content by attacking one's editorial opposition appears to continue elsewhere unabated. I'm commenting here because I had hoped we had made some progress on a more constructive approach to a potentially contentious topic. Clearly I was mistaken. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247.
2. (L Yew. Managing plurality: the politics of the periphery in early cold war singapore. International Journal of Asian Studies, 2010, 159-177
3. Anthony J. Stockwell, A widespread and long-concocted plot to overthrow government in Malaya? The origins of the Malayan Emergency. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 21, 3 (1993): 79-80.
4. Nicholas J. White Capitalism and Counter-Insurgency? Business and Government in the Malayan Emergency, 1948-57 Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 149-177
5. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards