Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)
Start a new discussion

Possible legal threat

Sigh...you know it's a bad day when you have to open 2 ANI threads. Could someone please look at User talk:Lovelightlaugh, and review the comment I posted there, which was copied from an email sent to me by that user? I believe it could be a legal threat, and the fact that the user refused to withdraw it ("I sincerely do not know what I will choose to do but will base my decisions of whether this is fairly addressed based on all that which was discussed. I have the right to choose based on fairness, equality, being in the know of what I am making my choices based on. "). This is regarding the article Anastasia Fontaines which I deleted under A7. If anyone thinks that deletion was wrong and/or I'm completely misreacting to the whole situation, feel free to undelete and or trout me w/o asking. I'm off for a bit. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You asked him to clarify after advising him that it was perceived as a threat and that the threat would lead to blocking. User explicitly refused to clarify and reiterated a specific condition required to satisfy him, which appears to reinforce that he is still threatening the legal alternative if he does not get his way. Indef-blocked. I left his talk-page unlocked for now should he choose to clarify an intent not to go legal as part of an unblock request. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How could you delete an article on a woman responsible for undying wisdom such as "If you take the time to look, you may find that somewhere next to every joke lies the truth." And there's more where that came from... [1]. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes cartooney threats are bad but IMHO the article in question wasn't an A7 candidate. The text Some of Anastasia's works include the award nominated Comcast Cranky commercial, the controversial "Viva Viagra and her ensemble lead role as Ms. Dora in cult film Director Gregory Hatanaka film Violent Blue is a credible assertion of significance. This should have gone to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the NLT block, but I also have to agree with Ron that AfD might have been more appropriate here. This seems to be a case where the subject isn't notable but the article does make a credible assertion of importance. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was on the border as to whether there was a credible claim of importance. There was no solid info about the film, and so wasn't sure if it was a sufficient info for starring in that movie to be "important". In fact, I explained to Lovelightlaugh (by email, because that was how xe was communicating with me) that if we could show that the movie was notable, then that would be sufficient to keep the article past speedy deletion, but would still likely end with the person's article being deleted by AfD (I ran a WP:BEFORE search myself). The editor even gave me enough info by email to make the me think the movie is notable enough for an article, and I encouraged xyr to write it. So, given the comments here, I'll go ahead and undelete the article on the actress and take it to AfD; maybe someone else can find some news articles about her that I couldn't find. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that IoS is "borderline". The "cult film" Violent Blue she stars in doesn't have an article but the director does and so does one of his other movies. It may be that the movie is indeed notable but nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. Notability is not inherited but "importance or significance" can be in some cases. However, it may also be that neither the director nor the other movie is notable but nobody has bothered to nominate them for deletion yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ironically, punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you (or Wikipedia) with legal action is criminally unlawful (obstruction of justice, contempt of court, etc) in most Western countries. I'm rather surprised that such a policy exists, let alone is enforced so ruthlessly. I have no comment on the present case itself. Deterence ^Talk 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. In the case of the WP:NLT policy, the rationale is explained on the page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and being locked in a prison cell is not punitive, it's preventative ;-) Deterence ^Talk 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly prevents that prisoner from repeating the acts that got him in prison in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, Deterence, if you don't actually understand a policy or if you lack perspective -- and characterizing being barred from a private website as a "punishment" certainly demonstrates that -- perhaps you should be less free with the advice. You have less than 600 edits and yet here you are all over this page giving advice. Or, I should say, TRYING to give advice. Not the best approach. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Calton, I casually gave an accurate legal observation as I was passing through. Which was significantly more constructive that your patronising and uncivil use of a ruler to measure our contributions. Deterence ^Talk 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "accurate" I was previously unaware of. You see, "accurate" implies that the words were not only factual, but have some relation to the topic under discussion. Your comments didn't have the slightest relevance -- making them not in the bit constructive -- and hence my correction intended to discourage even more casual and uninformed commentary from you was perfectly constructive. If you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to take the time to find out, you shouldn't comment: THAT is constructive advice. At least one long-term contributor was barred by ArbCom from commenting here after a long series of uninformed responses were deemed disruptive. Yours can be excused because you're new, but that defense isn't going to last all that long. --Calton | Talk 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, was looking for my case. Deterence, you are not correct. Businesses have a right to admit or deny admittance for any reason what so ever, even if a person has a purchased ticket for entry. Its English common law and possibly dates all the way to Roman times. Today the only exception is the Federal discrimination laws against race, sex, religion, etc. US Supreme Court ruled on this in 1912, feel free to read, its 2 pages long Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912).

Subsequently this ruling was reaffirmed by every single Federal district, and state courts for the last 100 years, and was last used in March 2011, by Senior Judge Roger L. Hunt of Nevada District Federal Court. In the case (Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr v. Harrah's Entertainment), a card counter sued to get into a casino that mailed him an invitation. Judge Hunt could have used specific laws aimed at excluding card counters, but instead he went back to the 1912 SC decision and as he wrote in the opinion "At common law, a proprietor of a privately-owned entertainment establishment may exclude whomever he wishes for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912). In addition, Nevada and California courts have long since established that the "right to exclude others" is a "fundamental element of private property ownership."" (quote i used from section: Discussion-A-1 of the above link). Please do not take this as a legal opinion or I will have to bill you. ;) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This all seems like a tangent to me, but businesses in California cannot necessarily exclude customers from entry based on the principle articulated in Allred v. Harris (the case cited in the Nevada federal case). Allred involved the intersection between picketing on private property, trespass, and the first amendment. California businesses are not allowed to discriminate on many bases (far more than the federal bases) and therefore can't "exclude" people from patronizing their business on any of thoses bases. See Unruh Civil Rights Act. And, naturally, each state in the U.S. is different.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how my casual comment came to this. --Calton, all I am seeing in your "constructive advice" is a whole lot of argumentum ad hominem - four of the six sentences in your last post (above) began with the words "you" or "your", and one of the remain two was nothing short of a threat to have me "barred", (for what, I'm not the least bit sure.) And you didn't even try to show how I am wrong or how you are right. Constructive?
• Meishern, my comment clearly referred to "most Western countries". In most Western countries, deliberately harming someone who has taken legitimate legal action against you, solely to influence their willingness to take that legal action against you, is considered an attempt to subvert their right to seek justice before the courts. Such behaviour is described in many ways, and in many languages, but include variations of "contempt of court" or "obstruction of justice". I'm not the least bit surprised that the right to exclude patrons for (not quite) any reason is significantly stronger in the United States, where private property rights are considerably more entrenched into the legal system, but, I do remind you that most Western countries lie outside the borders of the USA. Deterence ^Talk 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're misreading WP:NLT. The way I understand it, the point of the policy is not to "influence their willingness to take that legal action against [Wikipedia]". It's meant to avoid disruption and chilling effects on other editors while legal action is in progress. Think of it this way: if you worked for a newspaper, and filed a suit against them, you'd no doubt be put on "indefinite leave" while the suit was in progress, to avoid disruption in the workplace and to avoid "poisoning the well" through your actions potentially influencing the newspaper's position. Same thing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Bushranger, I'm not sure your analogy is comparable. If the "indefinite leave" is unpaid, then, most Employment Court jurisdictions would tear the employer a new one for placing the employee under such economic duress while the case remains sub judice (it may be different in the USA, but here in New Zealand the Employment Court would have zero patience for such coercive conduct by an employer). If the "indefinite leave" is paid leave, then the employee is still receiving the predominant benefit (an income) of his/her relationship with their employer. Is a blocked editor still receiving the predominant benefit of Wikipedia? I guess that depends on whether the predominant benefit received from Wikipedia by the blocked editor is merely the freedom to read Wikipedia articles or whether it is the ability to interact with, and contribute to, Wikipedia and its community. Deterence ^Talk 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't this now getting a bit off topic? What it is analagous to is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a NLT policy that we all abide by. Anyone making a legal threat is blocked until such time as the legal threat is removed or legal action is ended. If there's some misgivings about how the policy is worded, the Village Pump is that-a-way. --Blackmane (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blackmane, we're just shooting the breeze at the water cooler. Deterence ^Talk 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are not just shooting the breeze Deterence, when you make statements such as "punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you with legal action is criminally unlawful in most Western countries." That statement is false. Thus you are attempting to influence an Administrative board decision by providing non factual, false information and abstract opinions without anything factual to back up those statements. It is not criminally unlawful in all Western countries for a private business to bar entry to a visitor who threatened to sue them (with the only exceptions being cases covering extremely rare need based (not based on want) circumstances). Wikipedia does not employ this particular editor (no employer/employee laws involved) nor is it the editors landlord (tenant/landlord laws), nor is there a signed contract between the parties. If you go to a New Zeland restaurant and tell the owner that you will sue them, based on your statement, the restaurant must continue to admit you, and can not ask you to leave, nor bar your future entry and if they do, there will be a criminal case filed against the restaurant by law enforcement? The restaurant is under no obligation to feed you. They will bar your entry if you threaten a lawsuit as their legal adviser will ask them to do, as a preventive measure from you possibly planting evidence, influencing witnesses and customers, and creating additional incidents to back up your original claims. NZ legal system is also based on English common laws as is the US, which value property rights. Its not a right but a privilege to edit on Wikipedia, just as it is a privilege to eat at a privately owned NZ restaurant and not a right. If you want to be helpful, use facts backed up by references as I have above, otherwise you are the one who is attempting to obstruct justice by providing false information (even if you believe it to be true). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is actually why we have to block this user. We have a policy that is blind to the editor's membership in any group. If you make a legal threat against anyone in the community, you are not allowed to edit until the legal issue is resolved, or the threat is rescinded. The policy is simple, and is based on the first amendment right to free association, and does not take into account anything except the presence of a threat. The easiest way to run afoul of the law is to take into account an editor's race, religion, sex, perceived sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, creed, national origin, immigrant status, etc. etc. when applying these blocks. The fact that we routinely and consistently apply the rule is actually the key to legal protection. We don't discriminate. We are not required to provide full access to anyone, and nobody but Jimbo Wales and a select few others have it. All access is granted based on a member's actions, and by applying the rules consistently, we protect ourself from legal claims that we deny access because of prejudice. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD

User:Cydevil38 is repeatedly reverting edits on the Korean particles article, and refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion by listening to the arguments of others. I have reminded the user repeatedly regarding WP:BRD, and that discussion on the talk page to gain WP:CONSENSUS is a better alternative to the slow edit warring that has been taking place (and slow edit-warring is still edit-warring).

This user is repeatedly removing the Hanja from the page that I created a few days ago, which is disruptive and irritating. Long story short, the Korean language uses two writing systems: Hangul most of the time, and Hanja (in conjunction with Hangul) in certain circumstances, such as legal documents and published academic works (for example, the Constitution of South Korea is written in Hanja). I originally included the Hanja within the article as examples of text, so that the article would be more informative. To account for two different possible ways of displaying Korean orthography, the article contains example texts written in two lots: one entirely in Hangul, the other in Hangul-Hanja mixed script, in a similar manner to how Chinese linguistic pages are glossed with Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, Serbian pages are glossed with Cyrillic and Latin alphabet, Mongolian with Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet and Mongolian script, and so forth. This user insists on eliminating all instances of Hanja, claiming that they are "unnecessary" diff, despite that it is well known even in Korea that Hanja is an indisputable part of the Korean language (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). I interpret this as a form of nationalistic WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an attempt to downplay the usage of Hanja in Korean; no other editors have shown dissatisfaction over the content of the article except for this one editor.

I have provided detailed explanations on the article talk page concerning my rationales for writing the article the way I wrote it; Cydevil38 avoids the question whenever he or she is able to, and makes the false assumption that I am trying to force Chinese language into the article (note that Hanja ≠ Chinese; one is a writing system, the other a language), which makes no sense at all (the Japanese language uses Kanji, but that does not make it any more "Chinese"). As a linguistics-related article, the purpose of the article is to inform with as much detail as possible, and inclusion of Hanja does not thwart that; rather it makes reading all the more educating. There is absolutely no reason why this dispute should exist at all; it is essentially a non-issue being inflated by one very stubborn editor. This user has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and as shown by their confusion between language and script, I don't think they have the WP:COMPETENCE to be editing a linguistics-based article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex to separate the use of Chinese characters per se from both Korean and Japanese since both of those languages are in some way derived from Chinese, but that's neither here nor there. --Blackmane (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples of academic publications published in Hangul-Hanja mixed script:

• 漢文讀法에 쓰여진 韓國의 角筆符號口訣과 日本의 오코토點의 비교, 2003
• 韓國精神文化硏究院 新刊案內, 1985
• 韓國의 古代 漢詩 硏究를 통한 東아시아 춤의 理解, 2009
• 국제근로계약(國際勤勞契約)의 준거법(準據法)에 관한 한국(韓國)과 중국국제사법(中國國際私法)의 이동(異同), 2010
• 전후기 (戰後期) 한국농업문제 (韓國農業問題) 의 성격변화 (性格變化) 와 정책대응 (政策對應), 2006
• 韓國의 土活字印刷術에 관한 硏究, 2008
• 한국선시(韓國禪詩)의 발달사(發達史), 2006
• (特輯): 제 12 회 법을 통한 식민지배; 법 (法) 을 통한 일본 (日本) 의 한국식민지배 (韓國植民支配)-제 2 차 (第 2 次) 한일협약 (韓日協約) 후의 민사법 (民事法) 을 중심으로, 2007
• 한국(韓國)의 회사법(會社法) 개정내용(改正內容)에 대한 개관적 소개 -2009 한양대,간사이대 공동발표회에 부쳐, 2009
• 연구논문(硏究論文) : 한국(韓國)의 수출함수(輸出函數): 수출단가(輸出單價)와 수출물가(輸出物價)의 비교(比較) 및 효율적(效率的) 공적분추정법(共積分推定法)의 이용(利用), 1995

These are just the tip of the iceberg. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't be taking any administrative action in this since it might look like favoritism, but as for the content issue I think Cydevil38's reverts have no justification (there is no reason to remove what he is removing). It also looks to me like he has not made a genuine attempt to resolve the issue without edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hanja is not used that much in Korea anymore. Its use is commonly limited to the odd advertisement and sometimes in the newspaper if there is an ambiguous word. Compared to 50 years ago when newspapers were at times 80% or more hanja. It's an unnecessary duplication of content to give Hanja that most people would never see. I'd also question why your "new" article links to sections on wiktionary that don't exist. Every link you've added has a #japanese section attached to it. I'd question why they're there at all. wikipedia is not a link directory and we're not supposed to be linking to external links in the main article text anyway, let alone creating some kind of link farm to wiktionary. I'm also not sure what the basis of an encyclopedic article is here. It seems to be little more than content that is appropriate for wiktionary. You've included no content here that would push this into the realm of encyclopedic article, and it's not a list of things that we'd otherwise have articles on. If this is the extent of the article, I'll go ahead and redirect it because it is nothing more than a language how-to guide.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The links to Wiktionary are not my fault; they're part of the template, used for uniformity between Japanese particles, Chinese particles and Okinawan language#Particles. And no, redirecting on your part would not be a helpful solution because the article demonstrates grammatical particles used in the Korean language, and is not a how-to like you claim. Other linguistic articles similarly employ the use of textual examples to bring ideas across; this is more or less a standard across many linguistics articles. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you choose to use the template? They're poorly used, and in fact even more broken on the Chinese articles as they actually go to a Japanese section. Blaming the template is hardly a good defence. If the template is broken, fix it or don't use it. It's bad enough that we try and turn some of these articles into an advertisement for wiktionary that we have to turn around and link to the wrong things on top of that. Seee WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I see no compelling argument that this isn't a how-to article. There is absolutely no encyclopedic discussion of the particles at all. This is WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTADICTIONARY.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Copula (linguistics) uses example sentences in Georgian, Spanish and various other languages, to demonstate the copula. Predicate (grammar) uses example sentences in English to demonstrate the predicate. Japanese particles uses example sentences in Japanese to demonstrate various Japanese particles. Would it be more constructive to view Predicate (grammar) as a WP:HOWTO article on how to use predicates in English, or would it be more constructive to view it as a lingustics article that explains an important aspect in the English language? Everything can be viewed in two or more ways, it's just that out individual attitudes determine which path we pick. Claiming WP:HOWTO isn't the best way to fix this situation; if you really are that uncomfortable with the article and its lack of detail outside of the list of particles that use the examples, then WP:SOFIXIT - expand the article and add a better introduction and sections of detailed prose; the article is unfinished (I never said it was complete, did I?), and prior to it being an actual article, Korean particles was one of those highly sought-after articles that didn't exist. I've started the article, using the format and structure based on the Japanese particles page; anyone can finish it, so why not let it be you? Would it be more constructive for the encyclopedia to burn the half-built house down, or to actually finish the house?

>Did you choose to use the template?
What do you mean, "did I choose to use it"? Would you rather me waste three times the man-hours fiddling with wikisyntax and end up with a page that's ten times less aesthetically appealing and ten times more messy? Do you "choose" to use the {{Infobox Korean name}} template when creating articles too? Your question is quite odd. A template is a template; it makes articles better whilst making composition easier and work less tedious.

I also think you have your policies confused: WP:NOTADICTIONARY does not apply, as this isn't a one-word article about that word; whilst the, thou and fuck are words notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles and contain encyclopedic material, many are not notable and WP:NOTADICTIONARY is supposed to address those cases. Linking to Wiktionary is not a crime, and linking to any other cross-project page is not a crime; your accusation of "advertising" is quite absurd. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, all this talk about HOWTO and whatnot does not belong here at ANI. The focus here is edit-warring; if you want to discuss HOWTO, take it to the proper place, that is the article talk page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it takes a minimum of 2 to engage in that edit war. You've tried to paint the edit war with a certain light to make your edits look fine, but frankly I don't think they are. I would note that you also engaged in edit warring over removing this edit [7] which frankly is also inappropriate. These articles have absolutely no relevance to the article in question. See also are for topics that provide further insight and are related to that topic. They are not. Those pages provide no further information on Korean particles. Your argument still seems to be one mainly of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. The current article in its current form is nothing BUT example sentences. As you haven't even expanded it beyond that by one sentence, I can't see the compelling reason for having this created in the first place.--Crossmr (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so I've painted the edit war in a certain light, and I've been a participant in this edit war. This was a bad action that I have done, and like all human beings, I do bad actions. I admit that I might have been guilty of violating WP:EW due to my harsh overreaction based on a mixed feeling of emotions, like humans do, and as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community I should not have been doing that. I did before I thought, and this is my fault. However, can you address what I have explained regarding the use of Hanja within academic texts? The examples are right there in front of you. Why is it still being insisted that Hanja is nonexistant and extinct, when there are passages and links right in front of everyone? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the decline in Hanja use, that is only for mainstream texts such as newspapers, magazines, signposts, et cetera. Reports made by lawyers and the like are still required to use the Hanja script. Even taking mainstream texts into consideration, 50 years isn't that long ago. The decline of Hanja gradually took place over the 1970s, and today your everyday text uses mostly Hangul. However, as a comparison, on mainland China Simplified Chinese surplanted Traditional Chinese since 1956, much earlier than the demise of everyday Hanja, yet Traditional Chinese is still recognised in linguistics and glossed alongside Simplified Chinese in many contexts. From the beginning of Hangul during the era of King Sejong in the 1400s to the demise of Hanja in the 1970s, Korean mixed script for vernacular writing has had a much larger timeframe than Traditional Chinese characters being used in Vernacular Chinese text on mainland China, beginning from the May Fourth Movement and ending in 1956 when the simplified script was officially enforced by the PRC government. Korean mixed script was born earlier than Traditional Vernacular, and "died" (though that's not the right way to describe it) much later as well; even though widespread usage is not the case today, it is still a) linguistically relevant to the study of the Korean language, b) undeniable that it was once (i.e. 50 years ago) the standard way to write Korean, and c) still used even today in academic and legal areas. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Korea!=China. I know China has tried to change that once or twice, but in fact these are two different scenarios. Standard Hanja usage is only to use it ambiguous words, in this case, you've chosen to use it in several non-ambiguous words. As for BRD, you've only just created this article, you were bold in inserting unnecessary hanja, and it was removed there was no consensus for its inclusion and yet you reverted it. The article was not around long enough for the status quo to be the inclusion of Hanja.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What you have said is only the case for things such as newspaper reports, when homophones are disambiguated with Hanja. Have a look at [8]; this published paper on economics uses Hanja for many nouns and verbs, irregardless of whether there are homophones or not. An example sentence from this link is "즉 輸出單價를 EG方法으로 推定한 경우에는 非彈力的인 것으로, 輸出物價를 이용한 경우에는 單位彈力性을 갖는 것으로, 그리고 效率的 推定法을 이용한 경우에는 매우 彈力的인 것으로 판명되었다."

Alright then, let's play along with what you've said. Even if that were so, your claim "you've chosen to use it in several non-ambiguous words" does not entirely hold true. For "저것이 漢江이야" used within the page, I could argue that it is homophonous with "저것이 韓江이야". Same goes for the personal name 正男; what separates his name from other names such as 正南, 正嵐 or 正藍? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the meaning of the word "several". I said "several" as in "many" not "all". The first three I checked are not ambiguous. That is several. If you're genuinely using any words which are ambiguous you can distinguish them with an in-line hanja as the newspaper does. Its completely unnecessary to repeat the sentence just to change a couple jamo to hanja. As for the template, if you want to give the page a certain look either use/build a correct template, but trying to shoe-horn in an incorrect template, as has been done on Chinese particles does not benefit the article. Despite all that, I find your edits to this article to be just as disruptive as Cydevil38s. Now further add that to the dancing we've seen here in this thread, and the attempt to mischaracterize his edits to win a dispute and I'm beginning to see a genuine problem. I've noted in the past you've had issues when you get into disputes with people on pages, you've had a couple of wikiquette discussions over your behaviour, one only a few months ago, and I know on another article you were repeatedly warned about your behaviour towards other people whose edits you didn't like. BRD could just as easily apply to you as you were bold in turning this redirect into an article and you had work reverted so you should have discussed it rather than engaged in further reverts.I should also note that you first revert contained this text For native Japanese and Chinese speakers learning Korean, which sounds exactly like a how-to and not an encyclopedic article at all. I would also note that Cydevil fully explained the rationale behind his first two removals before you degenerated to a generic dismissive revert with rev 2 edits: WP:BRD, take it to the talk page. so far everything appears as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So you're right. We need to focus on the edit warring that went on here.--Crossmr (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin trying to make sense of this, could I ask that either of the main protagonists in this thread please make a specific request for admin action? Or failing that could you take this discussion to a different forum? You seem to have moved away from the original complaint about a third editor into a debate which few admins here will be qualified to comment upon. I don't think this is the right place to resolve your disagreement, though I would advise both of you to try and see if you could move some way towards seeing the other's point of view rather than continuing to move away from one another as you are doing. Try and find what you have in common, rather than what separates you! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply put Benlisquare came here looking for a block of Cydevil38, as its the only admin action he could be seeking in this incident. He tried to label Cydevil's edits as disruptive, I've simply pointed out that his edits are just as disruptive, if not more so. An admin should review the behaviour of the two editors and how they've handled the dispute and see if any blocks or other actions are warranted. I'm also suggesting that past behaviour be examined as I'm noticing a bit of a recurring trend with Benlisquare. In the past it's been noted that he's been uncivil and edited inappropriately in these kinds of disputes, and after my examining this, it looks like he's done so again in a round-about way by trying to mischaracterize Cydevil's behaviour. Specifically this edit [9] has a WP:BATTLEGROUND feel to it as he seems to have simply been reverting both edits simply because Cydevil did them. They're two separate issues and he provided nothing in his edit summary to support both actions. He went on to further that with this [10]. There may be WP:OWN issues here as well from the tone he's creating with those edit summaries and the way he made his request here.--Crossmr (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

>it as he seems to have simply been reverting both edits simply because Cydevil did them.
Not at all. Rather, don't you think it's frustrating when someone keeps removing content from an article that you created, and refuses to engage in meaningful talk? There are these strange things called human emotions, and patience is one of them; mine is limited. You seem to sugarcoat Cydeil38's actions, despite that none of his arguments made on the talk page nor in edit summaries make sense at all. I can similarly argue likewise: I've earlier been reluctant to call this out, since I'd definitely been ostracised to hell and back for WP:NPA, but my initial suspicion was that Cydevil38 was the one reverting simply because I was responsible for the article, given our sour history between each other.

>Simply put Benlisquare came here looking for a block of Cydevil38
So I guess they don't give out warnings at ANIs like they used to in the old days, right? Great for you to assume horrible faith. All I am after is that this nonsense ends ASAP, and any form of third-party action is better than nothing at all. This is "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" after all, and we have an incident regarding this article.

>it looks like he's done so again in a round-about way by trying to mischaracterize Cydevil's behaviour
Are you aware of how a discussion works? Party A gives their account of the story, Party B gives their account of the story, and a third party makes something out of the two stories. You shouldn't be expecting either party to give a story that is Fair and Balanced(TM), and if that was the case, I wouldn't recommend a career as a lawyer. Cydevil38 has been notified of this discussion; I find it strange that he has the time to revert after being notified, and doesn't bother to state his part of the story, leaving you to act as his liason officer.

>you've had a couple of wikiquette discussions over your behaviour
It would be great if you'd focus on the now and not the then. Digging up what might have happened between myself and others a few full moons ago isn't helpful towards solving this dispute. Putting most of the blame on me for this dispute is uncalled for as well, and anything that has happened in the past in politically-contentious articles such as those relating to the Chinese democracy movement or the Manchus in China are on a different string to this dispute, which is not even remotely related to politics and the like. Alright then, let's say I have quite a history; that doesn't make Cydevil38 any more angelic either, as both pots and kettles are a dark shade of black. I too can play the "he has a nasty history" ad hominem card; ignoring disputes on Wikipedia (there's quite a number to list), even doing a google search for "cydevil38 -wikipedia" will get you:

• cydevil38 says: (2011/07/01 at 4:30 pm) Chinese will cheat every way they can. This is just more proof. Chinese = cheaters Blacks = rapists Mexicans = theives
• cydevil38 says: (2011/06/29 at 5:52 pm) Chinese are so perverted and gross. They should be so ashamed of themselves. If I were Chinese, I would probably kill myself. Those Chinese gorilla’s just can’t keep their paws off Asian and White women.
• cydevil38 says: (2011/06/29 at 6:01 pm) I agree! Chinese should have a bloody revolution... I think anarchy, poverty, and starvation are better than not having freedom and democracy... I think Colonialism from the West would truly help the Chinese.

In other words, I'm quite appalled at how you're trying to make Cydevil the angel with white wings who is the victim of this current situation, and I am also appalled at how you choose to use the "digging up" card to address this issue. Going for an editor's history does no good towards any discussion, and it distracts from the main problems, as (I hope) I have demonstrated. I do not claim that I am a saint; I am a late-adolescent male who likes to pick drunken fights at a night bar just for the kicks of it (though I'd have no idea why I'd ever want to pick fights on Wikipedia), and I am definitely not a good person by 99% of people's definitions. Neither is Cydevil38 by my definition. I get emotional sometimes on Wikipedia during disputes, sometimes even making rash outbursts, as evident by my past. So does Cydevil38. If he didn't, I wouldn't think that would be what a normal human would be like. Given that I have striven to keep out of any form of trouble on Wikipedia for the past few months (hell, I've even declined an invitation to participate in the Senkaku Islands dispute discussion, as I know I get emotional over politics), I have the intention of the whole "fresh start" shebang, which is one of the things discussed in Wikipedia's core policies. Having you go back to them is somewhat like rubbing salt into an old wound. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm appalled at what Benlisquare wrote of me. I've never written what he claimed I have written. I've never posted on that site. As with the topic at hand, I still see all those Chinese characters as extraneous and not helping out with the readers in getting a better understanding of the subject. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A name used is quite a significant thing, and by no coincidence they are identical. Put yourself in someone else's shoes, and wouldn't it be your first assumption you'd make upon seeing something like that? Sure, I could always be wrong, but I have a justified suspicion, do I not? And as things currently stand, until proven otherwise I will continue to stand by my suspicions. Though the point of listing the above wasn't to make a "who is good, who is bad" statement; rather it's to demonstrate how digging up one's past to argue in an unrelated dispute is unnecessary. It's also a ponter that neither side can use the "but he's a biased editor" clause, as no side can claim neutrality in this situation, me or you.

And it happened off-wiki and is irrelevant here. Even if it was him. What you've done looks like a borderline attempt at WP:OUTING. I was referring to your on-wiki activites as are clearly documented, and April wasn't that long ago. It shows an on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in disputes. As such, I'm going to be making a request for specific admin action.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that because a few bad things have happened in the past, that I should never be permitted to make a statement at ANI? That is the impression that I am getting from you. This ANI report isn't as "bad" (I don't even see why it is "bad") as the one above and the one below. It's a legitimate request for third-party action be done in a content dispute. I don't follow your reasoning at all. Are you saying that everything is my fault? WP:OUTING? No personal information was "outed", it does not apply under that context. Calling out an editor's potential attitudes via off-wiki examples is not "outing". It's not like I've leaked addresses, real names and phone numbers, which is what WP:OUTING is supposed to address. Don't mean to make such a harsh assumption, but it appears to me that you'd go for even the slightest detail as an opportunity to strike an attack, using anything as an excuse. What would be anything constructive that might come out of this, might I ask? Disciplinary action for having an opinion? For making a one-sided report on ANI, when according to you I should have made a United Nations Observer's Report on the situation? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have zero evidence that they're the same person. Anyone can copy a username. What I am saying is that in the past you've edited uncivilly and inappropriate in disputes with other editors, you are doing so again and I don't think you should be allowed to continue with that pattern of behaviour. Nowhere did I say that you can't make a statement, what I did say is that intentionally trying to color the debate is also uncivil. You could have posted a neutral request for administrative action but you did not.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"You could have posted a neutral request for administrative action but you did not.-" - alright then, I've made a mistake. Per WP:REDACT, I should be permitted to redact my original talk. Now, if you are willing to move forward and drop all this useless controversy, I can rephrase my original post, and seek for neutral administrative action. I don't see why you should be worked up so much; I don't understand the reason for your frustation at all, and since I would expect you to not be perfect in all your words and actions, I'd likewise like you to have the same attitude. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can redact/retract it if you wish, but that shows a furtherance of the on-going behaviour. In the past two wikiquette examples you did the same thing, offer an apology/retraction, but continue the behaviour in other places. The problem extends well beyond this example.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep claiming that I redact and then continue to a cycle of disruption: Each incident has quite a significant time between each, and since I edit a lot of articles I am destined to come across a lot of disagreements with others - it's inevitable. If humans were hiveminded like ants are, we wouldn't have things such as the Second World War. Each editor ends up with pickles every now and then, and there's no editor that has never had a beef with another editor before. I'm sure even many of our administrators have had really nasty pickles in their time, eventually grew to be more flexible and became better role models for others, and ended up as perfectly normal sysops. Is there a limit to the number of times one can make mistakes? Is there a limit to the number of times one can make apologies? Do I start off with three credits, and once I've used them all up, I have to purchase them from the apology store? This is not the case, on Wikipedia, nor in life. Not just myself, but every one of us. We all have made our mothers upset, have turned up to class late, have ended up in traffic accidents; we have all also apologised to our mothers and lecturers, and to the other parties in traffic accidents. Being a horrible person every day of the week is a terrible thing, and on Wikipedia such behaviour does warrant administrative action. Ending up in a pickle once every few months - the same rate many married couples have arguments over financial issues, the same rate many employers yell at their employees - is not the same. We edit when we feel happy, we edit when we feel frustrated. We aren't all the same all the time. Sometimes we'd never have to see an argument for four months in a row, and sometimes they come one day after the other. If you really see real life as such a perfect utopia, then I am worried about what's going to happen in the future. Many of us are going to find a stable job, get married, get a house, and for those people, they definitely will have couple arguments. But, if a couple starts arguing, do they say "right, that's the seventh time we've argued since our marriage two years ago over finances, I'm going to take you to ANI and get you blocked for a week"? Or does an apology occur, followed by an understanding between the two, and they love each other for the rest of their lives, regardless of how many times this has occurred before? TL;DR, I'm saying that we are all bound to have disputes, on Wikipedia and in real life. It is illogical to expect perfection from every single person. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding >I still see all those Chinese characters as extraneous and not helping out with the readers in getting a better understanding of the subject, then why is Hanja used on Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905, Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910, Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Kim Il-sung, Lee Myung-bak, Sunshine Policy, Grand National Party, Joseon Dynasty, South Korea, Sejong the Great, and List of monarchs of Korea? In those cases, are they "extraneous"? Why does the Korean Wikipedia use Hanja to gloss a lot of terms? In those cases, are they "extraneous"? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you start a content RFC on the article talk page. Get more uninvolved opinions (like crossmrs) and see what consensus suggests. Then, if someone is editing against consensus action can be taken. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for specific adminstrative action

I'm requesting an administrator block Benlisquare for on-going and longterm disruption in disputes he's involved in. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive73#User:Mjroots_and_Railway_electrification_system, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive104#Racist_personal_attack_by_User:Benlisquare as well as being told several times here to tone it down Talk:PlayStation_Portable_homebrew while editing with users he didn't agree with. Add this to the mischaracterization above, which he excuses simply because "he's one side of the dispute" and what I view as a borderline attempt at WP:OUTING by trying to link Cydevil to some racist off-wiki comments that Cydevil is denying he wrote. Benlisquare has no proof they're the same person he's tried to use them in a dispute here. This is extremely disruptive and inappropriate. These incidents all stretch back over 2 years and show a disturbing trend, one that isn't likely to stop at the drop of a hat.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that you are going to get Benlisquare blocked over two impolite comments he made and apologized for—two years ago? Distracting administrators from User:Cydevil38's slow-motion edit-warring, refusal to engage in discussion, and racist comments is not a much more modest task. Benlisquare brought the wrong kind of evidence to ANI—that which answers a content dispute and not a conduct dispute—but Cydevil38's disruption is plain to see in Korean particles' article history and talk page. It is more an issue of Cydevil38's conduct than of content, because Cydevil38 is tendentiously using two falsehoods to edit-war even after acknowledgement and rejection.

1. Cydevil38 refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of Hanja's use in the modern Korean language.

   (The flimsy content rationale for his reverts)

2. Cydevil38 claims that Benlisquare was making a "bold change" in adding Hanja, when Benlisquare actually wrote the article and Cydevil38 made the bold and controversial change by removing the Hanja.

   (The flimsy procedural rationale for his reverts)

It would seem that Cydevil38 is more interested in reverting to his preferred content version than in improving the article, because his behavior (repeated reverting) and arguments (discredited arguments repeated) do not change in response to the intervention of other users. His behavior is not collaborative, and if Cydevil38 continues his reversion without fresh discussion or acknowledgement of plain truths (such as that he was the one making the bold change, not Benlisquare), then he should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Quigley (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think you're going to do much to defend him by trying to misrepresent the evidence? Anyone can clearly see the second wikiquette alert is from only 6 months ago. April 2011. The first one is from 2009. In 2010 he had to told several times on a single article's talk page to tone it down (I haven't looked at any other edits to see if the problem extended further) and then in 2011 he lobs a racially charged term at another user, and now we have him here trying to misrepresent another users edits, and then running off wiki to find unverified links trying to claim the user is a racist. Yes, I do think that deserves a block. As for the content issue, Benlisquare stopped providing helpful edit summaries before Cydevil38 did. One could also say Benlisquare was bold in turning a redirect into an article. Cydevil reverted part of that, and Benlisquare moved into behaviour that appears to be an on-going issue for him. Even if it turns out Benlisquare is right, it doesn't give him a pass on his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As for more recent behaviour, here he is only a few days ago trying to misuse WP:BRD to end another dispute [11]. At this point it seems the map was under dispute and had been changed at least a couple times already.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And as further evidence of the way he inappropriately addresses other editors [12] because to me it is incoherent faggotry that makes no sense at all, doesn't make my top 10 of civil ways to address other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

and here is another fine display [13]. Now that you've prompted me to actually go and have a look, I think I should renew my request with additional vigor.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Statement by Benlisquare: When was the last time I've even touched Talk:PlayStation Portable homebrew? One year is a very long time: It took one year for the Romans to lose a large chunk of Gaul, and I'm sure one sixth of the lifespan of my WP account and one third of the majority of my active years on WP is quite a significant quantity of time for personal development and change. (check the history; I've only begun to seriously contribute to Wikipedia since 2008; when I first created my account in 2005, it was barely used, sometimes even used for 13-year-old vandalism like all kids do). As for the two Wikiquette discussions, the first was made in 2009, when I was an underage kid. Even scientists have established that the Limbic system of the brain, responsible for emotional impulses, is underdeveloped in teenagers. I don't see why my conduct as a teenage has anything to do with who I am now, as an adult and a full member of society, let alone as a Wikipedia editor. As for the second one, it was a cultural misunderstanding; one thing that is alright with my peers is not alright on WP, and I've learned my lesson - editing Wikipedia is also a learning experience, for all of us. Getting upset and digging up buried incidents is somewhat (but not quite) WP:DEADHORSE - I don't know how to put it, but it's not what I believe is relevant to the current issue. It is a distraction. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when you last touched Playstation Portable Homebrew. The point was it is evidence of on-going behaviour. You've had repeated incidents over the last 2 years where you become uncivil and edit inappropriately in regards to other editors when they make edits you don't like to articles you're editing. The fact that you want to start getting in to the "limbic system" shows me that you're trying to dodge responsibility for your behaviour which gives me even less hope we won't see a repeat of this. Above it was the template's fault that links were broken or that they even existed in the first place, then it wasn't your fault for lobbing a racially charged term at an editor, it's a cultural misunderstanding, now its your limbic system causing you to make mistakes.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, assuming that you are an adult, do you recall doing anything stupid and unnecessary during your teenage years? And don't tell me something like "no, I was a completely perfect and rational individual all my life". In my country, a 17 year old who date rapes a girl gets 6 months community service and a good behavior bond, but an 18 year old who does the same gets 10 years prison and his name on a list. You have no reason to dig up things from a long time ago and use incidents from 2009 them like they are fresh pieces of evidence.

Let me ask you this: Is this really a disciplinary action you are seeking, or is it just revenge for past events? I don't see how it could be the former. Upon being blocked, will I really be thinking "oh dear, I really shouldn't have posted those nasty comments two years ago when I was a teenager, that was terrible of me, and I really need to reflect on what I am doing"? Or is this a kind of wrongdoing that is already acknowledged for a long time? Is there anything constructive that comes from what you are proposing? Does it benefit anything outside of you "feeling a bit better because you got an old bad guy out for a few days"?

In addition, I am still wondering why the liaison officer (de facto, of course) of Cydevil38 is so keen and interested in this particular case, and why Cydevil38 has little to nothing to add. I have great suspicions on this whole issue being a distraction to protect a dear friend, or that this is directed against me because I've done things in the past that has wronged the motherland. Keep in mind that these are only suspicions, not actual accusations that I am pursuing, so you don't have to get trigger-happy and accuse me of WP:ATTACK for that matter.

As for the limbic system, I'm being quite serious here, but you give a tone that makes me feel like you are mocking me. I've done extensive reading on the human nervous system as a part of ny neurology subject at University, and I am being serious that there is a difference in adolescent and adult brains, and I can provide you the dois of published papers if you like. But like the Hanja publications above, I doubt you'll actually read them.

Finally, am I being casted for This is your life or something? Everything from my past is being reported and scrutinized; do I get a down payment from a television station beforehand? Crossmr, humans are dynamic creatures, they change as they naturally develop. Haven't you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Saying "no, you're definitely a crook here on Wikipedia and everything you're saying is an excuse" is bad faith on your behalf. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do have plenty of reason when the complaint being made is about on-going long-term disruptive behaviour. You can't show that without giving diffs from the past. Whether we make mistakes in our youth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you've had a history of poor interaction with users you disagree with at least as far back as 2 years ago, there is evidence that it continued during the last 2 years, and there are several examples from this year, even as fresh as this incident, and only a couple months ago at that. That is not some isolated incident in the past to be ignored. It is one thing for a user to have an isolated incident years ago, and have years of spotless editing after that. That's distant past not worth bringing up in a fresh dispute. On the other, I've pointed to at least 3 incidents in the last 6 months in addition to the ones going back to 2009, and that's not without taking a hard look at those. What's your excuse for those? Did you limbic system suddenly kick in a month ago? Where was it when you were trying to paint a user as a racist above by linking to unverified off-wiki activity? No, your excuses really aren't holding any water here and it looks like you're trying to pass the buck while continuing your behaviour. And as for revenge, what evidence do you have to support that? About the only place I really recall encountering you that much is on the playstation article and we agreed as much as we disagreed there. That looks like a rather obvious assumption of bad faith on your part.I made the complaint based on the behaviour I observed in this and several other incidents you've engaged in and since I've made the complain I've found even further evidence of your inappropriate and uncivil behaviour towards other users.--Crossmr (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep referring to the racism incident; I've explained myself there, and do not need to repeat myself here. What one word is used everyday where I am from is looked down upon elsewhere. What another word that seems to have a meaning innocent enough ("boy") is actually an ethnic slur in America. As I have said, contributing to Wikipedia is a learning experience. You learn things you do not originally know. This incident is resolved. "Did you limbic system suddenly kick in a month ago?" - are you trying to be funny or demeaning? I'm starting to take offense, this is definitely a mocking tone.

You are quite vocal in your frustration; it isn't that well hidden. I recommend, no, I insist you to have some WP:TEA. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about far more than the racist diff, please see all the diffs above, like this one: [14] and this one [15] were these cultural misunderstandings as well?--Crossmr (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[16] this also seems to be a violation of WP:NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

and this Talk:Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea/Archive_1#My_challenge_to_User:KoreanSentry_to_end_this_nonsense_once_and_for_all is all kinds of inappropriate on several levels, and reeks of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:OWN issues.--Crossmr (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In one and two, I got trolled. It's not an appropriate response, but it is an expected response. I'm sure you'd do something similar, given the right circumstances, though maybe in a different style. Regarding three, it appears you haven't delved further into the situation; that user was genuinely being stubborn. Do I really have to cover it in icing and cherries? I mean seriously, my reply was to his comment that "Australia is a socialist country" - what would you have done? Given him a flowerbed of primroses and chrysanthemums? It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, like hearing "South Korea is a Middle Eastern kingdom" or something. Plus, Arilang1234 has been indef blocked for various reasons including the incident on Boxer Rebellion. Regarding KoreanSentry, when someone claims to be an expert in something, proving otherwise is incivil? As with the earlier one, you have not delved into the situation deep enough, and you are merely making assumptions based on initial outer appearances. That is quite inappropriate in my opinion.

Now, back to the original issue. I still don't understand what I did wrong in my original post for this Hanja incident. What normally happens at ANI is that I'm supposed to go "User A is doing X, Y and Z bad things on article N, and this is seen through U, V and W. This is bad because M." Then, user A is supposed to reply "I'd like to interject. User:Benlisquare is wrong in his statement that I done X; more realistically, I had done G, reason being that H. In addition, my Y is justified in that User:Benlisquare has unnecessarily J and K, which is in violation with WP:ABCDE." Then further discussion occurs involving myself, User A, third parties and an admin.Because Cydevil38 hasn't made the effort to give his account of the story, I'm the bad guy here? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also what do you mean "no"? You are taking a scientific fact and turning into a satire. I've explained that there are biological differences between adolescent and adult brains, and that it isn't justifiable to base what I've done a few years in the past as who I am, and that people are dynamic, not static. You, on the other hand, have turned this into a gag. "Oh no, User:Benlisquare is getting angsty again, it must be his limbic system kicking in! LOL xD!" That is quite insensitive of you, Crossmr. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

From the top of User:Crossmr: "I believe that discussion is necessary for growth of wikipedia. Discussion isn't leaving an opinion and walking away. It requires putting forth that opinion and discussing its place in the greater scheme of things. That means people may not agree with you, and you may not agree with them. The key is to stick to the matter at hand and discuss that." We might not agree on the whole Hanja business, but why cannot we complete the discussion regarding the article at hand first, and have an outcome for that? Why are we being distracted by things I've said maybe 2 years ago, 1.5 years ago, 1 year ago, or in April? Say this talk about me finishes. Are we going to go back to the Hanja business, or are you going to simply leave it hanging? Are you have it closed by default, since all these wrongs things about me have occurred, and hence my ANI does not qualify for discussion?

Blocks are not punitive, as per WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals. The way you list everything makes it seem to me as if you want me to be punished, because I've done a few things in the past, and I haven't been formally punished for them yet. It's like me stealing candy in third grade, and then in fifth grade another kid makes the statement "Miss, he stole candy in third grade and hasn't been punished yet, I think you should give him a detention". These things are long over, yet you're dwelving on every single one, keyword searching every single one of the posts I've made, nitpicking and cherrypicking for things, for what sake? For the benefit of the project? Because nothing has officially been done, you seek to wrong that right. You don't seem concerned with the wellbeing or improvement of the project, you just want immediate results. That's what I've interpreted. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) No, it's not an expected response. It's expected from you only because you've got a demonstrated history of responding like that to people who oppose you on articles. Your behaviour has been as recent as 3 months ago. If you're going to try and say you aren't responsible for your behaviour then you should be blocked until such a time that you can demonstrate that you are responsible for your behaviour. Your getting "Trolled" or whatever the excuse du jour is is again irrelevant. you are responsible for your behaviour. What I meant by "no" was that I was not just referring to the racism incident as an example of recent behaviour. There are in fact multiple examples of this type of behaviour, hence the reason for labelling it long-term and on-going and hence why your excuses aren't holding water. You've got all kinds of excuses about why you made these various edits, but they're just excuses. No one made you make them. You did them of your own free will. Did you not? As for what's wrong with your initial report, as I said, you misrepresented his edits, as yours were just as disruptive if not more, and frankly with comments like this being written by you [17], I really don't know why you're not blocked already. Meaningful discussion does not mean that users bend to your will. You did just as little listening to his point as you claim he did to yours.

As for blocks being preventative, let's talk about just 2 days ago, can we do that? That last comment you wrote was 2 days ago. The past shows that this is a long-term on-going issue. The comment written 2 days ago shows that it's continuing even now and you need to be blocked to prevent further disruption at this point. The point of the past is to show that this is a well entrenched issue and that this is not just a fresh new issue that has recently come up because of a "bad day" or some other excuse like that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you need to give BRD another read. BRD refers to a previous existing consensus. You are not a consensus you just created that article and as far as indicated none of the content was created through discussion. Had the article sat for months or a year before he edited it, we might consider a consensus existing based on no one opposing it, but it was immediately opposed within a day or so by him. As I noted above, you've tried to misuse BRD in the past to end disputes in your favor.--Crossmr (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am responsible for my behaviour. However you give the impression that nothing is ever forgivable in this world. Regarding [18], how is this blockworthy? He clearly has shown that he does not have WP:COMPETENCE, this is not a personal attack, this is reality. I have repeatedly referred to Hanja, meaning usage in Korean only, but he repeatedly speaks about "Chinese language" and things that are not relevant. What happened two days ago and all the things you are digging up are unrelated, i.e. apples and oranges. You on the other hand are twisting the narrative in a way so that the two are somehow related. You might be even using "disruption prevention" as a facade for a simple, ordinary punishment, and attempting to do so by linking recent events with past events. I think you might be viewing the situation with bias goggles - since I'm such a bad guy, and Cydevil38 is a dear comrade in need, you're selectively seeing what you want to see, and ignoring what you don't want to see. You are arguing that my past behaviour is evidence of a history of disruptiveness that warrants a block? Well might I direct to you Special:Contributions/Cydevil38 and Special:Contributions/KoreanSentry, the two that were involved in my last dispute. What sets these two apart from myself, so that these two are not blockworthy? They clearly are just as incivil and belligerent as I am. Perhaps it's your bias goggles working again. After all, everything is definitely my fault. I'm not going to go as far as to say you're "actively defending your countrymen", but I believe that your bias against me is working in favour of other editors, and that is not fair. Also, consensus being the redirect is your interpretation; my interpretation was that a completely new article was created, irrespective of whether or not a redirect existed earlier or not. Alright, so I might have misinterpreted BRD - is that a blockable offense as well? And before you make the accusation "What do you mean misinterpret? You were clearly abusing it, etc etc", I'd like to affirm that my view of BRD was exactly my view, and not an intentional twisting of it for my own purposes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) In addition, the problem is you're selectively replying and answering my questions. You're avoiding my questions that look bad on your proposal, and only replying to the ones that you find fault with. You avoid my points that make sense (you still haven't addressed those academic publications yet), and pile negative upon negative against me to discredit me. Until you specifically address all of my points, don't continue on. It's not honest. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Because a lot of your questions are relevant to the actual discussion. The academic publications are irrelevant to the question of edit warring, uncivil behaviour and generally inappropriate editing in user disputes. That's a content issue relevant for the talk page or an RfC. But again you're back to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This section is a specific request for a block over your on-going long-term behaviour issues. Koreansentry and cydevil38's on-going behaviour issues might be a great topic for another section, but they're irrelevant to your behaviour. Things are forgivable. If you stop doing them. For the last 2 years, you have not stopped doing them hence their relevance and weight on my request. Your actions do not exist in a bubble of "right now" if there is evidence that they're repeated behaviour issues. Yours definitely are. As the discussion continues I can see you assuming more and more bad faith and casting aspersions. You provide no evidence to support your claim that I was seeking revenge, you're now trying to claim that Cydevil is a "comrade in arms". This is a pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND statement, and given how you've acted to opposition to your edits in the past, that may also be an issue for you. As far as I know I've never encountered Cydevil before in my editing. What bias do you think I have against you? Again another unfounded claim. Regarding the comment the entire illustrated "My point/your head" thing was entirely unnecessary and a direct personal attack at Cydevil. do not blindly revert just for the sake of it is an assumption of bad faith, especially considering you did just that when you reverted 2 changes at once. Be aware that WP:COMPETENCE covers a lot of things, including maturity and frankly I'm seeing a distinct lack of it in your behaviour here.--Crossmr (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

>Regarding the comment the entire illustrated "My point/your head" thing was entirely unnecessary and a direct personal attack at Cydevil.
Because Wikipedia is serious business, no fun is allowed? It's not my fault you don't share my sense of humour. "My point going over your head" is a common lighthearted stock phrase which means "you've completely ignored what I've said". I don't see how you can interpret this as a PA.
>do not blindly revert just for the sake of it is an assumption of bad faith
He could have chosen not to revert, and to engage in talk. Following the conclusion talk, he could have edited the page as required. This isn't the first time this user has done this, as this has occurred before in many China/Japan/Korea articles, and I have all the right reason to make such an assumption.
>Koreansentry and cydevil38's on-going behaviour issues might be a great topic for another section, but they're irrelevant to your behaviour.
Great. So when I'm blocked, I guess it's party time, right? No one's going to be there to bother them, since I'll be out of the project! If you truly are a neutral party working hard for the sake of the project, you wouldn't turn a blind eye to other parties, and you would address the problems of all parties. Hence, this furthers my assumption of the bias that you claim does not exist. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Making these kinds of statements with editors you're engaged in a dispute with is not the place to be making them and having fun. You should have learned that by now with your earlier inappropriate comments. It is a sometimes lighthearted phrase, but it is also an insulting phrase which is exactly how you used it when combined with your inappropriate reference to WP:COMPETENCE and other dismissive comments you made in that statement. And you could have chosen not to revert as well. Given your repeated lapses in judgment on how to interact with other users, no I don't think you have all the right reasons to make such an assumption. And did I request an indefinite block? no I didn't. did I say anywhere that because you should be blocked that no one should ever look at their behaviour as well? no I didn't. These are just more bad faith assumptions on your part.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, sorry for making those bad faith assumptions. I thought that you were calling for my immediate removal from the project, and honestly something like that would feel like a shipwreck. As for my behaviour, I'm not saying that users should be overlooking the incivil things that I do; all I'm saying is that I'd like to be able to have the room to say "I screwed up", and then move on. Yes, I do engage in bad behaviour sometimes, but don't we all feel emotionally frustrated every now and then? I'd just like a bit of empathy, and nothing too complicated. I feel as if I'm not being understood by anyone. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have had that room in the past, and it hasn't seem to have made much difference if the last 6 months are much evidence. Hence the reason for this request. You need to find a way to deal with your frustration without lashing out at other users. You can start by taking genuine responsibility for your actions rather than trying to come up with a dozen excuses as to why this one "wasn't your fault". But given how long this has been going on, and the more I look, the more examples I find, I'd like to see some kind of rather strong sign that there is going to be a genuine change here, and I'd like to see you come up with that on your own.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Outside view by Lawrencekhoo: I've just read through this section and reviewed the edits in question, and I would like to propose that:

1. Crossmr stay out of this issue, as he displays emotional involvement and is not helping matters, and
2. Admins who are neither Korean not Chinese, please have a look at Cydevil38's behavior and issue the appropriate warnings, etc, as there is problematic behavior occurring. LK (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you're basing that on what? What evidence do you have that I was ever involved with this issue? To my knowledge i've not edited the article before, and I've used hanja in Korean articles in the past where appropriate. Are you suggesting any editor who has ever used hanja on the wiki should refrain from giving an opinion on the matter?--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its just me, but from reading the tone of your posts, you seem a but frustrated. But then again, reading emotion from text over the internet is definitely unreliable and inaccurate. May I however suggest that we all take 3 days of WP:TEA before coming back? It'll do us more benefit to have WP:COOLer heads, and I don't think any of us are WP:COOL at the moment. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Too long, didn't read summary of points/arguments by User:Benlisquare: The points that Crossmr has brought up all occurred a significant amount of time beforehand, and reporting here is not constructive, but punitive. Yes, many of these points are examples of terrible behaviour on my behalf, however all humans make mistakes, and I should be able to have apologies done in the past, and have them not doubted by editors in the present day. In addition, the events that occured two days ago are not in correlation with past events at all, and the linking between the two by Crossmr is unfair and not honest. In the past, I have made many WP:INCIVIL comments such as "I have fucking had enough, etc etc", however within these recent events (two days ago), I genuinely believe that Cydevil38 does not have WP:COMPETENCE to deal with linguistics issues, and I believe that calling this out does not warrant WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. In recent events, I have violated EW policy, and I admit that. I however do not believe that this should be the main spotlight of this event, and believe that people should look further than that one thing. I have misinterpreted WP:BRD, but this does not except other parties from wrongdoing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  And that's your spin on it and yet another blatant mischaracterization. The latest was only 2 days ago and provided several examples from the last 6 months. That's sufficiently fresh especially when combined with the older examples to show that this is in fact an on-going unchanging behaviour issue on your part. Your allowance to make mistakes does not give you free reign to insult other editors, say sorry, then do it again and again and again.--Crossmr (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have explained some cases. You are projecting the image that I'm the scum of the earth, and that is unfair. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm presenting the case that you've got an on-going behaviour problem that you seem to be refusing to take responsibility for and correct. I've not once said that you are the scum of the earth, nor implied that. That's purely your interpretation and spin. And regarding competence and civility you do read the policies and guidelines you link right? Wikipedia:COMPETENCE#This_essay... While it can be raised on an AN/I thread as an issue with an editor that needs addressing, tossing it around at people is seen as uncivil--Crossmr (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to put it then? I'm curious to know. Is there a standard accepted procedure that's CIVIL and does the job? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you have a genuine competence issue with a user, you bring it to AN/I and start a general thread for discussion. You don't, in the middle of a dispute, start hurling the essay at him like it's some kind of weapon.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, this makes sense, and I acknowledge that this would have been a better alternative for me to do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Yworo

Resolved

 – OP not asking for any admin action Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yworo (talk · contribs) has been editing for over two years, so he's a regular. He certainly should be aware that personal attacks are both unnecessary and destructive to Wikipedia. In a recent discussion on my talk page in which he and I were expressing our opinions about what is considered an acceptable source, he twice (and completely unprovoked) referred to my opinions as "stupid arguments"; see [19]. Now, should he make the argument that he referred to the "argument" (rather than the editor) as stupid, that certainly is splitting hairs. In looking through Yworo's edit history, I don't believe this is the first time he has had an abrasive style in dealing with editors who disagree with him, especially inexperienced editors, the very ones he should avoid even giving the appearance of a personal attack. I hope an admin or someone will have a word with him about this hostile style of discussing issues. I have notified Yworo that I started this thread. Thanks. Irolnire (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If he said you were stupid, that would be a personal attack. Calling an argument stupid isn't saying you are stupid anymore than saying an argument is invalid is calling you invalid. N^oformation ^Talk 18:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is, however, uncivil to call an agrument stupid. 134.241.58.153 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i agree, pull up your big girl panties and move on, on a separate note, yrowo has been around for awhile, once he tried to ban me and he is a stupid dummie. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...and actually doing a violation of WP:NPA in a discussion about someone else's WP:NPA was not the wisest move ever (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins blocked Darkstar for that remark. Am I the only one who thinks Darkstar was just trying to be funny? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As Steven J. Anderson noted, Darkstar1st was obviously "just trying to be funny". Time to step away from the keyboard, Bwilkins. Deterence ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Deterence, you'll need to do your research before even contemplating posting on this board. Indeed, a quick glance at this history between Darkstar and Yworo shows that Darkstar a) has a history with the user and therefore b) was clearly not trying to be funny (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No issue :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Except this time Darkstar was weighing in on Yworo's side. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? He told one editor to "pull up their panties" and called the other a "stupid dummie [sic]" ... pretty uncivil on both cases, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on all of that. Just that history with Yworo is not interpretive for the comment because Darkstar was weighing in on Yworo's side on this issue. I'm slowly building my Darkstar decoder ring, and I think that the "stupid dummie" was tongue-in-cheek. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

well said North, i was trying to express my exasperation at the word stupid being considered uncivil, in that case my entire childhood was actually uncivil, i heard that word 15 times a day. i thought...by weighing in on the side of of someone i had words in the past, i help the complainant realize yrowo isnt a bad guy and meant nothing by a harmless remark. B, if you have ever blocked someone for less, we would all love to hear, otherwise this will go down as the best block in entire wp history. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate for making a sexist remark on one editor's emotional stability, and calling another stupid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Noformaition, and I suspect I'm not alone. Let me extend your line of reasoning to illustrate my point. If you expressed an opinion on a talk page, and my response was "Noformation, that comment you just wrote is the lamest, most moronic, drivel I have ever read", most people would interpret that as a personal attack. Twice telling someone to "stop making stupid arguments and just follow the rules" is exactly the same thing, just not stated quite as boldly. Imagine if every new editor were to be flooded with comments such as "Stop making stupid arguments" or "Stop making such idiotic statements", how would most newcomers take that? Suppose my response to Yworo had been, "Stop expressing yourself like a whiny two-year-old with such insipid nonsense"; would you encourage me to make such response? How long do you think I would continue those sort of comments on multiple talk pages before I got blocked? As I said above, hiding behind the defense that "I said the argument is stupid" is a very thinly veiled legalistic way to attack someone mercilessly and endlessly and then pretend that you're being perfectly civil. Note that I'm not saying that Yworo made a threat, or that he violated any policies other than those pertaining to civility and personal attacks. And I'm not saying that there should be any consequences for his personal attacks beyond someone reminding him that we have policies about civility. You are wikilawyering to an extreme, and if everyone approached civil discussion that way, Wikipedia would quickly descend into a chaotic mess in which WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are nothing more than empty platitudes that in reality have no substance. I don't think that lowest level of interpretation of civility is what has been intended in these policies. Irolnire (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• If I describe this notification as the petty nonsense it so clearly is, am I also guilty of making "personal attacks"? Deterence ^Talk 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Noformation and I know I'm not alone. On the other hand, Irolnire, if you're right about not being alone, that will be established when someone posts here saying they agree with you.

In other news, I notice, Irolnire, that your first two edits were trivial edits to bluelink your talk and user pages, your third was to comment at a deletion discussion, and you found your way to this drama board in less than 20 edits. Now, please, please, please don't take this as a personal attack (please?), but I'm just sort of wondering if you perhaps have gained some experience editing Wikipedia as an IP or even (heaven forfend) using another account that, oh, I don't know, you hadn't used in a while and had, um, forgotten the password to. And maybe it just didn't occur to you to mention this. But I'm not accusing you of anything remotely dishonest or deceptive. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all; I don't take any of your comments as personal attacks or accusations, and you ask reasonable questions. Like many people, I read Wikipedia for a couple of years before attempting an edit. I edited anonymously for a few months, mostly minor cleanup. And I recently registered (as I was strongly encouraged to do so). I've never tried to hide this. But to a large extent, how I got here to this board is beside the point. If I had registered 10 years ago or yesterday, the issues would be the same: civility and personal attacks. And by the way, a comment or two in this section may not have used the phrase "I agree with Irolnire", but I think some senitment about comments such as Yworo's being uncivil has been expressed. In any event, you're right. I think we should see if other opinions are expressed. My only goal was to get this out in the open and let Yworo know about it so that he can know what others think. Irolnire (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I can add my experiences with Yworo. I had a content dispute with him. In all fairness, both Yworo and I were guilty of letting the dispute get out of control. The problem with Yworo is that he personalizes such disputes and can't let go of the personal animosity. He seems to especially harass IP editors. He places warnings and threats on IP talk pages, and then has his talk page semiprotected so the IP can't respond. With me he eventually vowed that he would bring my career as an IP editor to an end. Regardless of whether or not Yworo violates policies, I think he needs to seriously rethink the way he interacts with new or anonymous editors; his tone is very unwelcoming. 174.99.127.49 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no personal attack in the link made by the OP. I myself would not describe anyone's arguments as stupid in either talk page text or edit summaries; I just think it makes for an easier life. But it's not the same as calling an editor stupid. In general my experience of Yworo is of an effective and positive contributor. The example from the IP editor above, when read in full, is an entirely appropriate (if rather vigorous) attempt to handle editing from suspected multiple accounts. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's possible for Yworo to be an "effective and positive contributor" and still make more effort to tone down his abrasive style of communication. I just noticed another message (now removed) to me on his talk page, sarcastically asking me "Assuming you have nothing better to do with your time?". And when he removed my notice about this ANI discussion, he couldn't resist the edit summary "remove pointless drama-queen posts". That kind of personalization of legitimate discussion is entirely uncalled for, even if he is an "effective" contributor. Irolnire (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you Irolnire that less abrasion and more lubrication is always good. It would serve Yworo's own arguments better if they were couched in less friction-inducing language. But I've seen nothing so far that seems to me to need admin action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I agree that admin action is not necessary, nor is that why I began this discussion. But I do hope that Yworo will take all of these comments seriously, and that if he continues this abrasive style that other editors (not just admins) will try to reason with him. Thanks for your comments. Irolnire (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll mark this as closed then. Please do note the rubric at the top of this page re: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators; in future if you have similar problems they might be better taken somewhere like WP:WQA which is more designed for this sort of thing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stalking ?

Hello, I have a strange problem. I had the "luck" to become new obsession for User:Stubes99. It is about this edit [20], he even went to the trouble of making 2 youtube accounts and a video. Is there anything there can be done against this kind of attacks? Adrian (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's.....disturbing to say the least. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. :) Adrian (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed he sent this to others as well. [21]. Adrian (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting vid. Could anybody check its content? Because Somebody deleted it immediately from my talkpage. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don`t want to be rude, but are you serious? Adrian (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also , can you please stop advertising this "video" and youtube account? Adrian (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, You know the banned User:Iaaasi (alias Samiraj, Keeeeper, Bizovne etc..) is a very clever user.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don`t know what are you trying to do, but looks like Stubes99 managed to fulfill at least a part of his task. NP, If necessary, I will submit to check user to remove your doubts about me... I don`t know about your knowledge about e-mail addresses, but anyone could have wrote that e-mail, and even if the real Iassii wrote it how does that concern me? For an example I could write an email to Iasii saying you are my puppet and make a youtube video. Does that mean anything? Even if that is the reall Iasii e-mail, how can I be responsable what does somebody else write about me? Or next time if an gmail account appear with my username should we take that as real too? Adrian (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Why did you delete my text here? You do not have to worry about this vid if you are 'innocence'.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted youtube video because it is stalking and personal attack on me. It looks like you are block shopping therefore I don`t want to add anymore significance by pursuing this conversation further. Please stop with personal attacks (implying that all this is for real, and that I am a sock/meat puppet) and if you have any doubt about me please submit an SPI case or an ANI report. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here but a basically incomprehensible message just appeared at WP:COIN regarding this situation. See here. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Stubes99 is bored... Let him have his fun :). Adrian (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing is sure, User:Iaaasi's email address is correct on the vid. [22] and the message was from User:Iaaasi to Stubes99. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assuming that the claim of the email address was legitimately from the Iaaasi on en (I don't know enough about the history to know the details) - there are three possibilities: (a) The email account is controlled by Iadrian yu, and legitimately makes a sock/meat connection (b) The email account is controlled by Stubes99 (a known sockpuppeteer), and was sent to a secondary email account of theirs so as to allow them to make false claims against someone with whom they have a dispute (c) The email account is not controlled by either person in that dispute - and is Iaaasi trying to cause disruption by making false claims. The video itself does not prove conclusively one way or another towards any of those three options.

Unless a connection can be made via WP:SPI or at the very least WP:The duck test, there's nothing that can be done here - as we don't know at this point which party actually controls the email account. Besides which, YouTube isn't a WP:RS for most article content, and certainly not for blocking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If he'd spent as much time sayyyyy...getting a university degree...just think what good could happen. Instead, immature videos and attacks. What a waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The connection between user:Iaaasi and user:Samofi

Can someone verify the contents of this link? This link was posted in an ANI thread, a bit higher up the page with the comment that it contains the correct email address of Iaaasi. It seems that since then someone at the SK wiki tried to destroy the evidence of the connection between the banned user:Iaaasi and user:Samofi, who was already once indefinitely blocked and only unblocked after user:Iaaasi intervened on his behalf. Because now we can only see that an account named "Iaaasi" posted something to an account named "Samofi" at the SK wiki this link, but the contents of these posts are now removed. Because of global accounts we can possibly verify the identities of these SK wiki accounts but the contents are more problematic now. I assume from the higher up ANI thread that this was removed just recently and therefore many people might have seen it, can anyone help and verify it that it was the email address of the banned user:Iaaasi, being posted to Samofi on August 2nd? Is this correct? Hobartimus (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Or at least verify that it was an email address at this link, before being removed, with some accompanying message? Hobartimus (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Improper category inclusion

عمرو بن كلثوم persistently adds category Racism to Meir Kahane article: [23], [24], [25], [26]. I've pointed out to him or her that the inclusion is improper and that the category page itself warns, in bold, "This category is for issues relating to racism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly racist", but my appeal was disregarded. Please take measures. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• P.S. This user has been warned regarding edit-warring involving the same article a year ago: User talk:عمرو بن كلثوم#October 2010. --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a slow-burn edit war to me. Starting on 27 September, one reversion a day (skipping a day here and there), always restoring the deleted category. It may not bust WP:3RR, but I don't think there's any question as to the intent. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Warned. One more revert would be blockable, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, get a load of that user page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus has already seen it, and all He can do is to shake His head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there, it seems you are having a discussion here about my edits here, when you can see the edits of User:Vicky Ng at the same article going against consensus at many occasions (see discussion page). This dispute has been judged before as a content dispute see here, and User:Vicky Ng was blocked for one day based on her continuous reverts. I am not here only to keep an eye on this page (which seems the case of Vicky), but I have asked the user in my edit summary to discuss her point of view in the discussion page, which she didn't do, and she ignored such consensus in the past on the inclusion of Kahane in Category:Terrorism. My political contributions are minimal, because of this kind of behavior and edit wars. By the way, you may or may not agree with the facts and quotes on MY user page (mostly facts) based on your political/ethnic origin. Yes, I know talking about Israeli atrocities would unsettle many people in this forum. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this user has been reverting other users referenced contributions based on her political beliefs, not facts. See here, here and here only in this article. She did get a warning a year ago and was bloacked, and I think she deserves a new warning this time too. Do I need to report it in a new section? Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss Palestinian atrocities on your page also. I noticed that you've just passed your 1 year anniversary on Monday. Given your approach, I wouldn't bet the family jewels on your making it to 2. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, things like saying they went mad because their land was stolen, and they have been negotiating with Israel since 1991, to have in return the number of Israeli ARMED (to the teeth) settlers tripling their numbers on Palestinian land and so forth, with no hope for a Palestinian state promised in the same UN resolution that created Israel in 1947. Anyway, this is not the best place to discuss these things now. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If by "this" you mean wikipedia, you're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the correct approach here then would have been for عمرو بن كلثوم to add the racism category or a relevant subcategory to the Kahanism article. It looks like an IP added Category:Neo-Nazism to it back in September which is clearly wrong and hasn't been picked up. Given the nature of Kahanism as an ideology according to RS (including the Israeli state itself) it doesn't seem controversial at all to categorize it under racism or a subcat along with the other -isms and such like in there. The problem I suppose is that although Kahanism is an -ism that could reasonably be categorized under racism according to RS, the Kahanism category currently contains the subcategory Category:Kahanists‎ taking us back to square one, Meir Kahane and others. Perhaps the editors can try to work together to sort that mess out rather than edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at that userpage... also, I also think that the edits constitute a block, he's disrupting the equilibrium of the article. Rory ^{Come for talkies} 07:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything ? I don't care about people's user pages. If a bunch of diehard Kahanists or Hamas supporters want to edit the Meir Kahane article and related articles it's fine as long as they stick to policy. Apparently this user isn't familiar with this aspect of policy so people should help them to become familiar. This isn't about Vicky is good, عمرو بن كلثوم is bad. Vicky's track record on Kahanism related articles isn't exactly ideal either in my view. We could do without this kind of edit for example. I would rather see the users have to figure it out on the relevant talk pages according to policy because everyone has to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take another look at that edit. It reverted vandalism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was but you restored the terrorist label. You could have removed it. Perhaps you didn't see it. It wasn't the first time. These 4 consecutive edits by PersianPBF at Meir Kahane weren't great but they weren't vandalism. One of them simply removed the terrorist label which is consistent with policy but you reverted all 4 changing "shot to death by El Sayyid Nosair" back to "shot to death by the terrorist El Sayyid Nosair". The article is covered by discretionary sanctions so in my view these are less than ideal edits in this topic area. To be fair, in this edit to the lead, you didn't label the gunman as a terrorist, you changed "Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel..." to "Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel by an Arab gunman...". It isn't a classification used by either of the sources cited to describe the Egyptian-born American gunman but it is true and has survived in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably just wanted to keep edits separate from what I consider reverting vandalism. I agree that the word terrorist should not have been used in that context. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, since when are Palestinians a "race"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe in 1985 when Israel banned Kahanism for being racist or perhaps in 2001 when the UN described as Kahanist site as racist together with Stormfront and Jew Watch. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The notion of "race" in modern times is getting stretched pretty far. Maybe "racism" carries more emotional impact than "xenophobia" or "ethnocentrism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted and added to watch list. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Category Racism to Kahanism. Still, didn't see any action against user vicky who just reverts others' contributions explained earlier. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, aka Amr ibn Kulthum, your desired category cannot stand in a biography. Stop putting it there. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kahanism is an ideology. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add of course that the Meir Kahane article is covered by WP:1RR so عمرو بن كلثوم repeatedly making the same edit, albeit staying outside the 24hr zone, obviously isn't very helpful. عمرو بن كلثوم, please read WP:BRD and the headers at the top of the Meir Kahane article talk page explaining the revert restrictions and the discretionary sanctions if you plan to continue editing these articles. The Kahanism article's talk page doesn't have the headers but the restrictions apply there too. I shall be adding the headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??

According to the list op Topic Bans ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a topic ban for al Euthanasia-related articles. As stated on the mentioned page: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed,...". Knowing his habit of connecting the nazi atrocities with eugenetics and euthanasia, I was wondering if he crossed the line. The contested sentence is Although it was not the ideology underlying Nazi atrocities that Sanger found regrettable, it was the methodology.. Violation or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section "Eugenics" at "Margaret Sanger" article, and that paragraph does deal explicity with "nazi eugenics" not with euthanasia. And clearly my edit and the cited source was referring to "Nazi eugenics" related to "Margaret Sanger" and my edit did not relate nor even mentioned at all euthanasia. And this issue has been discussed and resolved already 3 times, here at the ANI and at one admin-talk-page. And all the times it was concluded that editing eugenics topics is not a violation of the euthanasia topic ban. This user NotBW certainly know this as he has been directly involved. I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, there is the traditional smoke screen and counter accusation. But, my dear Claudio, you are referring to earlier questions in relation to other articles. And here you clearly make the connection nazi atrocities vs. eugenetics movement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has six prior blocks for edit-warring, several of which stem from his relentless efforts to link Planned Parenthood to Nazism and eugenics by any means necessary. He was unblocked early last time because he supposedly understood the error of his ways. Now he's moved on to edit-warring at Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), pushing the exact same agenda.

  Obviously he's repeatedly trying to force in contentious material and earned a number of blocks, but he's still at it, still refusing to gain consensus on the talk page. How long does this go on? (That is not a rhetorical question - it is addressed to any uninvolved admin reviewing this thread). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell is another user who has been involved in this attempts to look for an excuse to ban me. My last edit at Margaret Sanger has not violated the 1RR and the prior cases are NOT the case now. Actually my edit was reverted 1 time by NotBW arguing that "he does not believe that I have read the source"; thus clearly baseless assuming bad faith due my edit was almost literally taken from a source which was already accepted as a reliable source for that article. Now, NotBW is trying to abuse the topic ban to enforce a broad ban against me, as it has been attempted 3 times up to now. If it was a content dispute at any rate MasterCell did not even complaint about the phrase but he just came first here also to attempt to enforce a ban against me. And MaterCell was also involved in the prior attempts to extend the euthanasia topic ban to the eugenic topic. So it seems MasterCell is always looking for any excuse to try to resolve the dispute contents by forcing punishments and bans against me. Is he stalking me also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing your POV-pushing and creativity with the truth, I still do not think I was overly distrustful to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that the sentence is really there in the source. But crucially, the context is totally different. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this guy edits dishonestly and in bad faith, and has problems understanding written English that severely undermine his ability to edit effectively. Worse, he seems uninterested in improving himself in this regard. When challenged on any of the above, he reacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute.

Take this for what you will; I am apparently risking a permanent ban from Wikipedia just by saying this, as you can see from my talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[To clarify, I am not familiar with this topic ban or the previous incidents that led to it, and don't take any position on the topic ban itself. I added the above comments because they tend to support some of the things NOTBW and MastCell have said, and also, partly, out of sheer frustration.] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factcheker was warned two times because of his proven personal attacks and rude uncivil comments against me. At any rate, for Factchecker I am just a "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, in fact, say those things, and was indeed warned twice, with the second warning appearing to imply that any subsequent block would be permanent. This really has no bearing on the complaints that I and other editors have raised regarding your actual editing conduct. Regardless of how inappropriately I acted, has it occurred to you that the frequency of personal attacks against you, real or perceived, may have something to do with your own behavior? And has anyone ever made a criticism that you found to be legitimate or worthwhile? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, you are simply attempting to legitimate your continuous and very rude personal attacks against me. I have to ask also if you are looking for a revenge against me because you were warned by an admin to stop insulting me?. At any rate I have not to tolerate nor to condone you calling me "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" speaking "gibberish", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"[R]eacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute." Yeah... that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) As you already asked for an excuse for your behavior then I solely have to hide it because the above comment is just another personal attack dealing wiht nothing else than me and my alleged reactions. Thts is its content. But you already promised not to repeat that. So let me add, at any rate: I am not able to understand anyone expecting answers from me about any content when it is asked with insults. And let me overreact and exagerate: I also can not support nor undertsand if an inquisitor demands to those tortured to stay focused on the matter of question and not in the brutal manner it is asked. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time the issue came up, the limited consensus appeared to be the topic ban didn't cover eugenics in itself. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics. Has the topic ban changed since then? If not it was suggested last time there may be merit to expand the topic ban, or if his behaviour is too bad, just banning him completely would I guess be an option. However I wouldn't suggest his editing the topic in itself should lead to any action (his precise editing may be a different matter), particularly since he was aware of the previous discussion so even if a new consensus develops, it seems a bit unfair to take action when he was possibly relying on the previous intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem that he is seeking the borders... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems, you NotBW are the one seeking the borders. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that it's time to expand the topic ban to include abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. He's racked up three blocks for edit-warring on these very topics in the past few months. And that's on top of his prior blocks for edit-warring that led to the topic ban from euthanasia. People who edit these topics constructively shouldn't have to deal with this sort of relentlessly tendentious editing. There are actually general sanctions on abortion-related articles which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing: "Any uninvolved admin may impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Such topic bans or blocks may be of up to three months duration." MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell you always attempt to use any excuse to try this, I believe you are stalking me and less concerned about the disruptions in this wikipedia. Proof: Factchekcer (the user who believes that I am a "fucking idiot") violated the 1RR rule at the same articles more than 1 time during the last weeks and he even got an incredible patience although he insisted on edit warring after being warned[27]; but his clear disruptive behaviour did not deserve your attention surely because he is usually at your side of the disputes. So it seems you are not really concerned about the disruption at those articles but you are trying to eliminate an user who does not agree with you. Another proof: if you were just concerned about my alleged contentious last edit why did not you revert it or attempted to discuss it at the talk page but you just came first here to the ANI? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If Factchecker violates 1RR and doesn't self-revert, I think he should be blocked. If he gets blocked six times for edit-warring, as you've been, then I think he should be topic-banned. Does that sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I violated 1RR once because I had never heard of 1RR before and didn't know any such restriction was in place; I violated 1RR a second time because I simply forgot it was in place. I am now wary of the existence of such strict measures. In the meantime, I also participated in the discussion and implemented the resulting consensus even though it was contrary to my own feelings on what was appropriate. This last part is a very crucial step that Claudio is missing and I'd suggest that this is the chief reason this discussion was initiated. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No MastCell, as I said, your attempts to ban me are not a fair way to resolve your contents disputes with me. And my last edit was far from become a edit warring, so you even lack of a pretext to try this ban again. It seems you are stalking me. Factckeer I am not missing nothing not even one of your words referring to me, such as "stupid reasoning", "giberish" or "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I said you're missing is, among other things, the need to accept consensus when it is contrary to your own conclusions about what is best. I am aware that you noticed the profanity I directed at you on one occasion, as you've now repeated it in this discussion five separate times, as if to distract from the substance of the complaints about you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion on whether or not the topic ban should be extended is warranted. The continued and tedentious behavior exhibited in order to try and create this link has gone on long enough. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What "tendentiouslink tendentiously inserted" are you talking about Falcon8765? That Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, coercive sterilization of sick people, ban for sick immigrants based on eugenics grounds is not a "tendentious link tendentiously inserted" but a fact that was even accepted and included into the Margaret Sanger wikipedia-article since long ago and actually not by me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "tedentious link". I said "tedentious behavior". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At any rate it is not a link tendentiously inserted but a fact already inserted since long ago into that article and not by me. And actually that link has nothing to do with the current discussion here. But you are another of those users who always came to the ANI looking for a ban against me based on off-topic things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question Glancing at ClaudioSantos' edit history, I see a near single-minded obsession with eugenics (and, lets be fair, it is pretty horrifying) and related sanctity of life issues such as euthanasia (again, many people find it pretty horrifying), and a lot of chatter that seems to involve an aggressive attitude and getting into edit wars. What am I missing here that makes a topic ban make sense as opposed to a plain old, and rather long, block?--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So an "obsession with life" is your reason to push a block against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to second Tznkai's question. ClaudioSantos has been topic banned (once) and blocked SIX times for tendentious and obsessive POV pushing and shows little promise of reform despite numerous unkept promises. An indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Patience is a virtue, but only up to a certain point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been topic banned solely 1 time and I have not violated that topic ban ever. Dominus Vobisdu is clearly lying and misleading misled or he just mistyped, but his comment could mislead other users to my detriment. And the reason to open this thread at the ANI was baseless: solely one edit -already reverted and which did not drive to any edit warring- which at any rate also did NOT violate the topic ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing for which you are searching, Claudio, is "Dominus, if I have been topic banned as you say, could you please provide diffs of those bans? Thank you." I am almost certain you were not calling another editor a liar in a thread about how combative your approach has been. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Dominus mistyped and meant to say "blocked six times" not "banned". This is a common mis-type. KillerChihuahua^?!?[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice] 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Sometimes my keyboard freezes up for a moment and ignores input, as it did in this case. I've added the omitted words in bold to my post above, as well as added the word once so that no one can interpret it as meaning that he was topic banned six times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let correct my last comment. Here I also have to add that the user (NotBW) who opened this thread already admitted that the reason he argued to revert my edit was also baseless due my edit was indeed explicity in the source. So his confessed assumption of bad faith ("I do not think you really did read the source") was nothing else than that. And this edit did not violate the topic ban as it was already stablished, because a lot of times it was told that editing eugenics topics does not mean editing euthanasia topics. This thread lacks even of pretexts but not of hostile and sedulous supporters who have called me a "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" writting "gibberish", included some other users bordering the personal attacks referring to my edits with psycho(patho)logisms such as "obsessions", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be; its irrelevant to the issue of your behavior. Its clear from your posts here that you have a problematic approach to working with your fellow editors. Regarding Factchecker atyourservice, you keep harping on a past transgression which has been handled and therefore there is no reason I can see to bring it up unless you're trying to refute his statements not by refuting them directly but by the ad hom approach of character assassination; Mastcell, you accuse of stalking you and "looking for excuses to ban you"; Dominus, you accused of lying - and yes, I appreciate you refactoring that statement, but in the future you'd do much better if you think before you post, and refactor before hitting the "submit" button. Meanwhile, you've caused a lot of disruption and don't seem to be at all open to the idea that your approach is causing any problems. I'm leaning strongly towards supporting Mastcell's suggestion we widen the topic ban; my main concern is that we'll have to keep widening it until it encompasses all of Wikipedia if you don't start reconsidering some of the advice you've been getting and taking it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And at the end of this long and quite not-so-nice discussion, I still have no answer on the question "Did he violate the topic ban". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; no, he did not. The topic ban was quite narrow; hence our discussion about whether it should be expanded to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics; I would also add Nazi related topics. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear! Thank you for your opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic ban is explicitly broad, and I quote: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". I don't think that Euthanasia sections of any article could be considered outside the scope of that topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics is not euthanasia, no matter how broadly one construes it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The altered paragraph, however, is focused on euthanasia in eugenics. No matter what the title of the article or the section, he is editing regarding the topic of euthanasia - that's a violation of his topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The preceding sentence, which he did not edit, mentions euthanasia. The sentence he edited has no reference to euthanasia at all. I'm willing to call that a non-violation. Right now, I'm more interested in trying to see if he understands why he got that ban, and realizes he's engaging in the same behavior, and looking at increased editing restrictions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.

KillerChihuahua, let me ask: so it is fair for all the mentioned users to refer about what they consider my behavior to re-open this ANI-thread but it is a fault of my part to refer to their behavior toward me? and it is fair to reopen this ANI-thread harping things which were already "handled" and which happened weeks and even months ago, but it is a fault of my part to refer to some very rude personal attacks and disruptions continuosly happening (and the last PA took part just 1 day ago) for whereby I think they are stalking me? KillerChihuahua, if that is your concern, certainly I was not the one who opened this ANI-thread to deal with already handled things, I came here to defend myself. So I find this unfair, given the fact that this ANI thread was opened because of one single edit, whereby I have not broken the current topic ban nor I have broken any 1RR rule nor my last edit even became an edit war nor a disruption, so precisely it seems here I am going to be re-judged and re-punished for already handled and past things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand why you got the first topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do. And currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user. The case with Factchecker is an example: instead of answering his very rude personal attacks, I have invited him to disengage from me and as he did not, then I have reported him to an admin to handle the thing. If this is your concern, let consider that I am not harping in Factcheker-s PAs here but the fact is: 1 day after he was warned because of his rude behavior calling me "dishonest person", then he came here to this ANI calling me again a "dishonest person". Actually I have not mentioned his PA-s here before he came here again to call me again "dishonest". Perhaps I must not ask if some users are stalking me, but the fact is: this is the 3 or even the 4 time the very same users open this ANI-thread using the very same pretext ("by editing eugenics I have broken the euthanasia ban"), and after that pretext is rejected then they bring again already handled and closed cases against me. So, I have to repeat: Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article, so I have not broken the ban. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know, I was strongly temped to ignore everything you wrote after "I do." I read it, but it was useless and spammy and repetitive and I wish you hadn't wasted the text. Please don't do that again. Second question: WHAT led to your topic ban? Please be brief be concise and stay on topic this time, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I have already answered: currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user which were the reason for the ban. And yes, I have understood those reasons. Proofs> certainly I have not PA any user although I have received some very provokatives comments. Certainly I have got my last blocks because I broke the 1RR rule as I was not used with that rule but I was being very careful not to engage in edit wars but discussing my edits at the talk pages. And you can check that after the ban most of my edits are at talk pages discussing the changes instead of editing the articles. A -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So short version (which I would have very much appreciated you sticking to) would be "editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user" - yes? And then you claim you haven't done that. Because accusing other editors of stalking, and lying, and so on, is not being rude??? A simple yes or no will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No and yes. I have expressed my concerns and I asked if opening 4 times the very same thread with the very same wrong pretext is not stalking me given the fact that the user who opened this thread was warned by one admin, because the non-involved admin also found in the past that this user was stalking me. If I wrote that some user was lying, it was due the very hard pressure that means to be answering this very same thread to the very same users once again, but I have refactored my comment. And at any rate I also think that it is not fair to let some users to continuously PA me and let other users to re-open this ANI thread using the very same wrong rejected pretext, again and again and again and again, whereby finally it desperates me and I write a wrong word which is then used as an excuse to punish me. I have patiently answered those concerns again and again and again. You can check that I have not written any PA against any user at any of the mentioned ANI threads dealing with the very same thing. So, finally, perhaps deseperated I lost a word ("he is lying") that at least is less rude than some words I have received also here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

He asked a question. That's not a "wrong pretext" no matter how much you ABF. He got a short clear answer, too, which is more than I'm getting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But this same question was already answered 3 times and he was aware> editing eugenics is not breaking the euthanasia topic ban. Why to ask here again? Will any edit, I do at eugenics, trigger this very same thread again and again? Should I keep quite each time it happens? At any rate if that is not a pretext this time I was invited to came here to answer again the same question and I was put again under the same pressure. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in question did mention euthanasia, and moreover, mentioned it in direct comparison to eugenics and as part of a general eugenics program. Just because I decided to cut some slack and not treat this as a violation does not mean it isn't very, very borderline, and another admin - or even me on another day - might have ruled that it does violate your ban. Every single time someone thinks you might be violating your ban, they can come here and ask. And if they ask 100 times, you should come and respond here, by explaining how your edit did not violate your ban. NOT with what's wrong with the other editor, or who is stalking you, or who is lying, or any other speculations or attacks on other editors. Simply with whether you violated the ban, and why or why not you think that. This is part of being under a topic ban. You are under this "pressure" because your behavior and editing have led to sanctions, in this case a topic ban. It is not the fault of the person asking the question; it is your fault, for your poor editing behavior previously which led to your topic ban. Do you understand? A yes or no will suffice. If the answer is no, then a brief question here about what you do not understand will be answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have patiently answered the question, the past 3 times it emerged, without any PA nor even asking if it was stalking. I also rejected to answer a question of some user who openly asked me if I considered euthanasia to be a form of eugenics or viceversa and then he came to the ANI to ask if eugenics could be part of the euthanasia topic ban if I thought that eugenics is euthanasia. I also have been very patience rejecting insults like "fucking idiot", "imbecile", "stupid", "dishonest". If I deserves that sort of pressures at any rate my patience should be considered and not solely two wrong words at this thread because I thought the question was already answered enough times and the criteria was enough clear. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you any new insults to report? If so, provide diffs. Otherwise, your beating of this dead horse is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In this same thread Factcheker call me "dishonest" and diqualified my reading and language skills[28], while one day ago he was warned to stop calling me precisely with the same very terms. But given that a ban is being triggered because of my alleged "combative attitude" it should be noticed that you have not mentioned nothing at all about me being really so patience about those rude insults and aswering very patiently 3 threads asking if euthanasia topic ban includes eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean "In this very thread Factchecker called me "dishonest" and disparaged my reading and language skills. I believe he may have a point; it is clear your English language skills are not quite to the level we expect of editors, if your posts here are any example. I am sorry you find this information painful to read; however your lack of skill at written English is quite plain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the thing and being unfair. He was warned not to refer again to my language skills for he used that excuse to call me "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "giberish writer" and he abusively and repeatedly edited my user page although he was warned to stop doing so. If a ban against me is now considered because of my past, it is proverbial how these past insults and disruptions are now being forgotten and you simply say: "he has a point".But let aside the language skills, are you legitimating him to call me "dishonest" also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that your difficulties with English may be contributing to your problems here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, I only began calling your editing "dishonest" after our most recent discussion which revealed conduct which I consider to be clearly dishonest. To be specific, you deleted an article sentence with the edit summary "that is not siad by the cited sources". When I discovered that it was, in fact, stated verbatim by the cited source on the cited page, I chalked it up to the language barrier, although in retrospect that seems to have been too generous to you, as no failure of reading comprehension by a reader who uses the Latin alphabet could explain a failure to see an exact replica of the article text in the source itself.

The picture got much worse when you revealed your actual motive for removing the material. I quote:

The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were right in claiming this (which I really don't think you were), it became clear at this point that you had misrepresented your edit. To be specific, you were making the edit based on a very thin (and I think, questionable) argument; but instead you pretended that you had a rock-solid justification (because surely, "it's not in the source" is one of the most rock-solid justifications of all for removing article text). I find it impossible to believe that this was not a fully calculated attempt to disguise the nature of an unjustified and very POV-pushing edit. There's just no rational explanation that I can see that would explain why you acted the way you did.

So, that's why I called you dishonest, and you have not even attempted to prove me wrong. Instead, you go on and on about how I'm persecuting you and shouldn't be believed because I cursed at you. This, too, seems a bit dishonest, though not in the unambiguous sense that the other conduct I just described appears to be dishonest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, after you referred to me using expresions such as "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "gibberish" and "someone who does not deserve friendly manners", I have decided that chatting with you would be a waste of time and a occasion for unproductive and uncivil discussions and for more personal attacks against me. Ironically my efforts to disengage from you and to keeep away from uncivil discussions were not seen here but solely my sole rude word asking if I was being "stalked". At any rate, my edit was finally reverted by you and I did not restore it to avoid any edit war, thus another of my efforts to avoid edit wars but also an effort not considered here in favor of me. At any rate I explained to you that I could not find that claim was in the source because for me it seemed a matter of opinion while in the article it was presented as a matter of facts. Perhaps the matter is that I can not understand how can be said that Sanger does not tolerate bigotry with some people while at the same time this Sanger expressively and openly considers this people to be an inferior race. Surely I have a different comprehension on what does mean tolerence. For me just saying and admitting that some people is inferior is a matter of bigotry. That was my "stupid reasoning" which led me to think that it was not a fact but an opinion, while the WP was presenting it as a fact. At any rate, instead of discussing the thing and instead of using the existing means for an eventual content dispute, the thing was bringed immediately here at the ANI. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you think "that is not siad by the cited sources" was a clear and honest way of saying that you think the source was stating a matter of opinion which should not be reflected as fact in a Wikipedia article? Do you see how an editor who simply took that edit summary at face value would likely refrain from investigating further—rather than logging in to Google books and reading through pages of some obscure text—whereas if you had raised the "opinion vs. fact" rationale then that would have given other editors a clue that the issue was not quite that cut and dry?

It seems to me that this was either just as dishonest as I think it was, or that the language barrier is a bit steeper than I had thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For me the source does not say that "Sanger does not tolerate bigotry", but for me the source says that "for the author Sanger would not tolerate bigotry". So I summarized: the source does not say that. If it was a mistake at any rate I answered your concern and explained my reasons and I did not restore my edit when you reverted it. Thus another overlooked effort from my part to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions and to explain and let correct my edits. Another effort also not considered here in my favor. So unfair. For the rest: you assuming my bad language skills and my defficient moral, is something I still reject once again to discuss due improductive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment, was reply to Factchecker in the Alternate proposal section. As it has ntohing to do with the proposal, I have moved it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since the ban I use to explain any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and you also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). Despite your rude comments, I have even explained to you my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once you have reverted it. And you reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. But at any rate I have not restored it once you have reverted me and you opened the discussion at the talk page. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. So, these are some proofs that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussion about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unfair. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you remember your first reply on me in this discussion? For your information, you have stated there: "I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me". I call that an, to cite you, "unporductive uncivil discussion about the users"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken into account the very large amount of times included the last 3 threads asking if I was breaking the euthanasia topic ban when editing eugenics, a lor of thread for which I have answered very patiently to anybody? It is unfair to judge me here because I used here a the word "stalking" because I thought your question was alreay answered before a lot of times. If that was a wrong word at any rate certainly I have shown a lot of disposal to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions despite of very rude insults against me and I have discussed every edit that emerged to be disputed. My last blocks were because I have broken the very strict 1RR rule for which I was not used. So, things in my favor should be also considered, do not you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a normal question about the article Margaret Sanger. It does not matter that the same question was asked in relation to other articles. But every article is judged on his own merites, so checking on every article is possible. Unfortunately, you reponded by kicking and screaming, sparking an ugly discussion. You could also have waited to see what the answer would be... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could ask me about the thing instead of coming here to the ANI or you could just warned me about your concern and perhaps I would have reverted myself, or you could advise me to keep quite here at this thread to avoid any misundertanding. Unfortunately you did not. If there are no innocent, at any rate I am not incorrigible but elimination may be. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban

I suggest expanding the topic ban for ClaudioSantos to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all BLPs biographies of notable persons involved (however remotely) in such subjects. This would include editing any BLP where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article. Editor has combative attitude, a bad case of pointing fingers at others rather than discussing problems with his own behavior. Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP, or Biographies in general? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. All biographies relating to the topics, I should think. I welcome any feedback or other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support with some reservations. I think even with an expanded topic ban we'll be back here again, so I would advocate an indefinite block here. If a topic ban is put in place I think restricting all edits to biographies in his problem areas is warranted. AniMate 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  We can always indef if the expanded parameters don't have the desired effect. I have changed the proposed sanctions to cover all biographies in covered topics, not just BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for user with long term civility problems and an agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. In line with my comments above. If you're going to topic ban him/her from the only places he/she is interested in writing, why not just block or siteban outright?--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently it hasn't been mentioned whether this is keeping the current timeline, extending it or making it indefinite. Also have a problem with the Biography wording. With the wording now if he edits ANY politician page whether he is editing the person's view on abortion or not, someone can say he is violating his ban.Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re: canvassing: Just FYI, Claudio has canvassed at least 4 other editors requesting their participation in this discussion, all of whom were apparently chosen on the presumption that they would view him favorably (NYyankees51, Haymaker, Marauder40, Qwyrxian). MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  addendum: he has already been warned and has not canvassed any more since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  And I have invited also users who support the ban against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not on Wikipedia you haven't. You've only asked those listed by Mastcell. After you received the note about WP:CANVASS, you told the editor who cautioned you that you had "asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me"[29] which is conveniently something only you and the recipients can verify, as it is not available for the rest of us to view. I'm left wondering why the difference in venue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  How convenient. Please provide proof of that statement, or else explain why you should not be blocked for it. NW (Talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Tznkai, ask him to verify. And I did sent an email also to Marauder, but while Tznkai answered here the ANI supporting the ban against me, Marauder did not commented anything so I also left him a message at his talk page. I also left a message to Qwyrxian an uninvolved admin in the articles here mentioned (Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, etc.) but who have a vreal and good understanding to differentiate and reject PAs and insults. He already commented this proposal and it should be noticed that he did not supported nor rejected the ban but mentioned some points about it. Marauder and the other 2 users I left a message were users previously involved in all the content disputes I have been dealing with the topic eugenics including the article Margaret Sanger, so I think they could be interested in this thing. I thought it was not canvassing given that I did invite not only people who could side with me but people uninvolved and people against. At any rate, once I have been warned that it could be cavassing I still did not invite anyone else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - An outright ban seems unproductive, seeing his prior sockpuppetry. But a wide topic ban seems fair if it includes biographies of everybody actively involved or member of any related movement but excludes national politicians (if not involved/member). Half a year or a year looks a good term. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm one of the canvassed editors. As far as I can recall, my involvement with this crew so far has been the person mentioned above several times as having warned Factchecker for personal attacks. I have no opinion on whether or not this ban is deserved, but I do think that the phrase "however remotely" needs to be removed. "Broadly construed", as already used, is the standard wording, and "however remotely" would render this topic ban into an unintentional trap. That wording would almost guarantee that CS would cross the ban, because someone could say, "Hey, you edited an article of Person X; he used to work for Company X whose ex-CEO once gave a donation to Planned Parenthood,so that's remotely related, so you're in violation of your ban." Also, I'd like clarification on whether or not this ban extends to user space and/or article talk space. My opinion is that article talk space should apply, but not user space; I would like for the user to be able to safely ask someone whether or not a given article falls under the ban, since the limits may be difficult to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems too harsh. I might agree with a short (i.e. one month) topic ban to allow for mentorship or adoption, as I proposed below. I think what Claudio needs is a full appreciation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. As someone who has been down this road before, it is entirely possible for Claudio to reform without drastic measures being taken. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He is now serving a 3 month topic ban. Why just a month? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If an editor doesn't have an appreciation of Wikipedia's guidelines after the multiple discussions brought here, a topic ban, and multiple blocks for edit warring; you'll forgive me for being skeptical that they'll have a sudden change of heart. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am an advocate of second chances, as well as an adopter. I would like for this editor to have the benefit of adoption before we start seriously considering indef banning.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

• Comment — Again, I'd prefer to abstain from judgment on the actual topic ban, but I think it's important to state the following. My repeated core suggestion to Claudio, which has unfortunately both gone ignored and has provoked hostility in response (which I admit I have subsequently matched), can be stated as follows:

If Claudio finds himself locked in a dispute with another editor, and resolution of the dispute promises to hinge on either of the following:

1. Analysis of English text in a source, or

2. Understanding of WP policy as expressed in written statements of policy,

Claudio should consult with a native or other expert English speaker, and preferably one with very extensive WP experience, before persisting with a disputed edit, or even a drawn-out talk page discussion, which can be equally unproductive given a significant language barrier. If he does not do this, his good but still problematic English language skills will negatively impact both his reading of the source and his understanding of the applicable policy. These two manifestations of the language barrier would seem likely to feed off of each other and multiply the problems that result. The other perceived qualities that have led to this ANI, the topic ban, and other blocks, are a significant enough problem without this complicating factor. And it just seems that the language barrier problem would be the very easiest one to correct—if not in the way I suggest, then in some other way that leaves the door open to a productive editing future.

Barring that, it's not my opinion that editing English WP should be open to any and all. Some baseline language ability, or at least a willingness to work around a very real language barrier, should be required, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about Factckeher proposal: Since the ban I use to explain and discuss any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user as proposed by Factchecker now, so I am not against doing so. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and Factcheker self also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). For example, despite some rude comments, I have even explained and discussed my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once Factcheker have reverted it. And Factchecker reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. Due the ban I strive not to get involved in that sort of discussions despite the commenter deserves an answer about the content despite of the manners. So, these are some proofs showing that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussions about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unnecessary. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet more arguing about language skills and civility. Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, excellent example of a statement that flies in the face of the 5 pillars and founding principals of WP.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Have you ever read WP:CIR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry to offend, Marauder, but how so? You've got me curious. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Many of the best editors of WP may not speak English as a first, second, or even third language. I have been on several pages where someone that obviously had problems with English made an edit to a page that was correct, but may have had grammatical issues with it. I have been in talk page discussion with people where this also happened, including issues where cultural or grammar issues had to be explained. It seems like this pillar is being forgotten "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit...Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others.", yes WP:CIR exists, but language problems can be worked with with people that are welcoming, but not by people that are failing to AGF or give second chances, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC) However, according to WP:COMPETENCE, an editor may be working in good faith, but if their language skills prohibit them from properly contributing then that's simply something we can't deal with. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just putting it out there. Noformation Talk 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It seems some are making more of the language issue then there really is. Instead of taking things to talk pages and discussing it there, things got into a slow moving edit war with multiple people. People (on both sides) seem to be claiming language issues that aren't really there. IMHO, the language difficultly section of WP:CIR refers to people that barely understand English repeatedly inserting horrible English into the actual articles, not people that may have minor interpreting issues or being sloppy on the talk page/edit summaries. Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Marauder, your previous comment is all well and good, but the scenario you envision presupposes an editor who is both able to recognize, and willing to work around, his language limitations. Claudio, on the other hand, reacts with negativity and even hostility at the mere suggestion that he is perhaps not Bill Shakespeare. Further, the existence or non-existence of other editors whose language limitations don't get in the way of their editing is really quite irrelevant. My suggestion offers a perfectly reasonable way that Claudio could work around his language issues and keep them from coloring disputes (at worst) and constantly making extra work for other editors (at best). FWIW, I have yet to see an edit by Claudio that didn't introduce broken English or at least very very bad grammar into an article. If every single edit he makes requires significant-to-massive copyediting, and if he can't understand the sources he is reading, or the policies he's supposed to be observing, it seems the simpler and more practical solution that Claudio himself make the effort to avoid such problems. Finally, this could foster the sort of mentoring relationship that we all need at one point or another. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you are exaggerating to make a point here, because I have seen edits he has made that don't have major grammar errors. The edit that brought this thing to ANI is an example. Approach can also help in the situations, instead of wholesale reverts, just correcting the grammar, or saying on the talk page, "Hey, you might want to phrase it this way instead." Don't attack with, "Grammar Nazi" (not an attack, directly from your user page) style attacks. I admit my grammar on talk page stinks, but I try to get it right in actual articles, but realize that sometimes people need to correct me. The example that brought this to ANI is a content dispute, not a grammar problem. Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) No, I'm not exaggerating, but it's not as if I've looked through his edit history. I'm talking about the edits he's made at articles at times when I was watching them. And actually, the edit that brought this to ANI helps prove my point. The sentence he added was only grammatically correct to the extent it was copy/pasted from the source; he added a single word and a comma which then rendered it in need of copy editing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I would wholesale revert for grammar. I reverted because he seems to have been lying about the source. And this is something I've brought to his attention before when he claimed something was simply not in the source when it clearly and obviously was right there in the cited source at the cited location. And you're way off-base with the suggestion that I am being a "grammar Nazi", too; we're talking about basic reading comprehension that has a critical impact on the way he reads sources and policies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC) First off, I got the fact that you are a "grammar Nazi" directly off your user page. I was using the example as an item that doesn't have a MAJOR grammatical error in it. Claiming things like that he is introducing "Broken English" or "very very bad grammar" in every article he edits doesn't hold up here. Like I said the reason for this coming to ANI isn't a grammar issue but a content issue. I personally think the language portion of this ANI request should be a non-issue.Marauder40 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC) That doesn't mean that my suggestion here is grammar nazi-ish. Indeed, the complaint about introduction of copy-editing workload (and some of it is, indeed, incredibly bad) is at the margin of what I've been talking about. Rather, it's Claudio's understanding of sources, understanding of policies, and the way he then reflects that understanding of the source and states his policy rationales to other. These are at the core of editing even where no content disputes exist, but become almost the only thing that matters when a dispute must be resolved. And I'm not even saying that some kind of sanction needs to be placed; but if anyone but me thinks this is a reasonable idea, I think they might be able to persuade Claudio to seek this sort of constructive advice on his own initiative. I have tried, but failed. That's it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Factchecker you insulting me is far from being productive or an attempt to improve my language skills. I have never rejected to improve my language skills and I take a lot of care when editing an article, but I certainly have rejected your very uncivil manners against me. And due the ban, I have to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions such as those you proposed to me. Actually, these my efforts to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions, have not been considered in favor of me in this ANI thread. Well, at any rate, your very first comment to me at one talk page was expressively saying that people like me should not be allowed to edit at wikipedia. Surely, we have a very different comprehension on what is productive and what is unproductive. Well, I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from my less mechanical native language, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering your very rude comments Factchecker. Above I also explained my last edit reasoning. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another alternate proposal

Simple: mentorship or adoption for ClaudioSantos. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This editor should be offered the benefit of mentoring/adoption. In the instance the disruption continues we can always revisit more stringent sanctions.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bad good dragosh98

Over the passed few days, several editors at WP:WikiProject Football, myself included, have had trouble with Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs). He has a blatant disregard for notability guidelines. Many of the articles this user has created have gone straight to afd. Once nomminated, he has frequently removed the afd tags. In at least one instance, Horia Crişan, he has recreated deleted articles repeatidly. He has been involved in at least one edit warring dispute. Most importantly, all atempts to communicate with him, both in English and Romanian, which appears to be his native language, have been ignored. A quick look at his talk page will give an idea as to what the problems are. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You may find some previous discussion here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Problematic_user. I've given up hope for this editor and would support an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this user has never once communicated on an article or user talk page, aside from the original non-English note xe left on xyr user talk shortly after joining. The user has dozens of articles deleted, via prod, BLP-prod, and Speedy, and now some are going through AfD. If WikiProject Football is fed up with him, then it seems that even if some of xyr info is useful, the overall drain on resources is such that the user is a net negative to the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a one year block. The previous discussions here at ANI have suggested that a major part of this editor's problems is that their understanding of English is, at present, just not good enough to allow them to edit en.wiki articles without causing disruption. Making a quick assumption from the username and the editing behaviour, there's a fair chance the editor is a young teenager whose first language is not English. Doubtless they are learning English in school; if so then it's plausible that one year from now their English might be good enough to participate without problems. A year's break might also help with any other problems that exist aside from the language problems.

I'd also request that, if that's the route gone down, someone phrase an explanation of it politely and encouragingly, and put it on their talk page in Romanian. It's a good idea to make them understand that this is not a punitive block, and that they're encouraged to contribute to ro.wiki in the meantime, and to contribute to en.wiki again when their English skills have developed more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Are there any Romanian speakers in the house? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Going to need many eyes on the Steve Jobs page. Getting word via Twitter, but nothing I can confirm of course, that he has passed away. Semi-protection might be needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can say that Steve Jobs lost his last job. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That was tacky, Rainbow Dash. LadyofShalott 13:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC news website has it as their breaking news ticker; no linked news item yet. Bencherlite^Talk 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by ABC. Is this enough for a semi-protection? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And confirmed on MarketWatch. I looked at the article, it shows under Semi as of September 15. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I should have noticed that. Thanks Alan :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify (for anyone who hasn't looked yet), Airplaneman reinstated indefinite Semi when the Pending Changes test ended, according to the protection comment. That said, the WP:RS announcements are pouring in thick and fast on the usual channels, so I don't think there'll be any question about sourcing, except how many to attach to the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's up on www.apple.com and on CNN, San Francisco Chronicle and the other SF Bay Area media, etc... 208.185.244.250 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, just when it was first reported, it was just Twitter reports (hence my post), then it was CNN, then TMZ (I guess they are reliable now) and then the others. Finally, Apple posted a short, simple statement on their homepage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Could someone with more image expertise than myself deal with File:AppleScreenshotJobsDied.jpg. It's a non-free image without a fair use rationale and I personally don't think a valid fair use rationale could be written for it. Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Not only was it not being used, it is also a duplicate of File:Applecom homepage after death of Steve Jobs.png, which is currently in use in the article. –MuZemike 00:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia shuts down

See previous discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FYI, see here. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC) See also #Pressing Need: The it.wiki's freedom is under threat!!!, above. lifebaka++ 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps this is better in other areas, but I read this at the first link: Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia would have the right for a statement ("correction") to be shown, unaltered, on the page, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources. This is strictly against a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia overall, that all content must be independently verifiable. If a person who is the subject of an article is given the right - not ability, but right - to have his or her own version published on the site, without a link to a single verifiable source, it can do nothing but ruin Wikipedia. If information published in a biography is verified, it's completely allowed in the article, and no subject should have the right to change it to whatever they want. I'm sure Jimbo will have a comment on this matter as it proceeds through the Italian governmental channels, and if this bill passes, it might be RIP for the Italian Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Check his wikipage User_talk:Jimbo Wales. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Tishrei 5772 05:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It is indeed shut down :( In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I asked the same question here 1. It is documented at this article 2. Adrian (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Yikes. Does this mean the interwiki links to the Italian language version will have to be removed? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging the history of a sub-page in user space into a pre-existing article

If a person wishes to make significant changes to an article one option is to draft a new version in a sandbox in their own user space and then edit the article and copy the new text from their sandbox into the article (the sandbox may or may not be called sandbox but it is a sub-page of the user's user space). When this is done the history of the article records the significant change to the article as one edit.

Nev1 decided that the text of the article White Tower (Tower of London) was inadequate. So much so that Nev1 removed the main link to the "White Tower" from the Tower of London article and then a day and a half later redirected the article "White Tower (Tower of London)" to the "Tower of London" article:

• "Tower of London" Revision as of 13:07, 29 September 2011
• "White Tower (Tower of London)" Revision as of 22:45, 30 September 2011

Nev1 drafted a new article in User:Nev1/White Tower so far so good. This is what any editor can do. However on completion of the new draft, instead of copying the new text into the article, Nev1 choose to merge the two articles together creating a unified history. This has in my opinion had two detrimental effects. The first is that it has interlaced the histories of the earlier part of the user's sub-page edits into the later history of the article page. This has for example resulted in changing the edit history of the article to appear different from what it was. For example a revert of an edit that changed the article into a redirect now looks like the revert of something else. The second problem with this approach is that it looks as if Nev1 was editing and developing the article in article space with no objections. This I think gives a false impression that the edit trail was built up with consent (silence equals consent). In general this type of merge seems like a very dangerous thing to do because we all rely here in ANI and other Wikiepdia forum that the history of an article (with occasional small discrepancies to fix cut and past moves) are an accurate record of changes made to an article.

Over a day ago, I asked Nev1 on Nev1's talk page to revert the merge (Revision as of 11:10, 4 October 2011) Nev1 posted a comment to the talk page after my comment (Revision Revision as of 11:27, 4 October 2011)--so Nev1 has seen the request--but no revert of the merge has taken place.

1. I would like to know what the consensus is at ANI. May editors use administrative functions to merge the histories of their own user space article into the history of an article that already exist, or should they restrict themselves to the tools available to an ordinary user?
2. If the agreement is that administrative tools should not be used to perform this action, then should Nev1 or another uninvolved administrator in this specific case de-merge the histories?

NB just so it is clear I am concerned about the method used to introduce new text, I am not discussing the content of the text (because question one is a general one and applies to any new text moved from a users sandbox into an existing article--We will get sidetracked if we do start to discuss the article's content as content is something for the article talk page not an ANI). As I have already explained on Nev1's talk page, if the article and the sandbox are de-merged Nev1 can instead copy across the text from the sandbox to the article as would be done by a user who did not have access to administrative tools. Once that is done then editing of the article and discussing its content on the article's talk page can resume as normal without the current false history created by interleaving a user's sandbox and an article's history. -- PBS (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am but a lowly non-admin, so I'm not sure how much my opinion's worth, but I'll give my two bob anyway. First, it may be a good idea for someone to ping Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) and Graham87 (talk · contribs) – they are our histmerge experts. To answer your first question, "May editors use administrative functions to merge the histories of their own user space article into the history of an article that already exist", the answer is without a doubt yes. This happens quite often and users who are non-admins are free to ask any admin to do this for them (watch someone like Anthony Appleyard's talk page and you will see it happen fairly regularly). The only proviso is that the draft article and the one that was sitting in article space must not have parallel histories. In this case, there are only two overlapping edits (one by Nev and one by PBS) that make the history look odd. My understanding is that only two overlapping edits would generally be considered acceptable (and if they were irritating someone they could be hidden by revdelete, or deleting the article and then selectively undeleting), because by incorporating Nev's draft a more accurate depiction of how the article was built is given. To answer your second question, a de-merge is a complicated and tedious thing to do (I have seen one take over an hour, but I don't think this case would be as complicated) and I think that in this situation, the positives of keeping the history as is outweigh the negatives when you consider you consider that the current history is a more accurate depiction of how the article was built, only two revisions look odd in the history and de-merges are time consuming. But again, I should probably stress I am a non-admin and I have never performed a histmerge or de-merge. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

From PBS's description, it doesn't sound like there was anything improper about that history merge. It's perfectly fine to merge the histories (and, if more than one person worked on the sandbox version, it is actually required). That's not to say that you can't still challenge (perferably on the talkpage, if they are major) things about the new version with which you disagree. LadyofShalott 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Lady of Shalott, but in the interests of avoiding drama, I went ahead and purged two of the revisions and placed them here. I think we're done here? NW (Talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The point I was raising was a general one that this type of merge is a bad idea as it places a false edit history in to the article and we all rely on accurate histories as an audit trail to make decisions on what did and did not happen in an article. This type of alteration means that we can not trust the history of an article, doubly so if an editor who wishes to look at the history of an article does not have access to administrative tools. Does no one else have an opinion on merging the history of a user sandbox into an existing article? -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In this example case I have presented, I think the edits by you (NuclearWarfare) has now complicated matters because you have moved edits that were part of the article history out of the article and left in other edits. This make the history of the article even further from its original history than it was before. Rather than moving the edits which were in the article history why not move the edits which have never been part of the article's history out and just leave in place the most recent addition from user space? If that were done then if someone wishes to view the additional history they can, but it will not be mixed up in the history of the article, which is the audit trail of the article's development in article space. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who's "rewritten from scratch" more than a few articles, I would never history-merge an article from userspace - unless it had been worked on by multiple people in the userspace (i.e. to provide proper attribution). If one person worked in the article in their userspace, it should be cut-and-pasted as a single edit into the mainspace article, even if it's been worked on for months and replaces every character in the article. To do otherwise leads to confusion and discussions like the one above. (Now, in the case of multiple people working on a userspace draft, I'm not quite sure about that, but I don't believe that's at issue here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@PBS: I would rather that the edit summaries that explains why Nev chose to make the edits he did be preserved; I think the rationale for each of his edits is far more important to have than a tiny revert war between the two of you. On the off chance that you need it to cite as evidence in an RFC or something, you know where to look. Also...actually, never mind, just forget it. This thread is entirely unnecessary, and I shouldn't waste any more of my time on it. Feel free to revert or modify my actions as you see fit. NW (Talk) 02:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

==

and User:Wlkr999 ==

and User:Wlkr999 suddenly joined in the English Wikiredia. They seems to think that their own arguments and sources are correct, and then it should be achieved their own purpose in several articles of History of Korea [30], Timeline of Korean history [31], Template:History of Korea [32], and Gojoseon [33]. However, I believe that behaviors of two user was intentional distorting the truth about Korean history, and these actions is suppose to contempt for Wikipedia rules such as WP:EW, and WP:TAGTEAM.

especially violates the WP:PA by swear word to me as "Shut up Historiographer, how dare you to claim it is unreliable?".[34] I felt deeply insulted by him, and think it is That's pretty harsh for the other user. I hope and admin take fair action to

and User:Wlkr999 about these hostile personal attack, distorting the Korean history, vandals in Korea-related articles, and violate the several Wikipedia rules. Thanks.--Historiographer (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see several concerning things here. First, I don't see anybody talking on the article/template talk pages--and they (may be)/are new users, so they might have an excuse, but you're a long term veteran Historiographer, so you should know that you can't just try to keep an article in your preferred version just by edit warring.

Having said that, I am highly concerned that these two editors started editing only a week apart, and so far have a nearly 100% overlap: Wlkr999 has edited exactly 3 different articles/templates, all 3 of which Quendearn has also edited (Quendearn's only additional article is Timeline of Korean history. Plus, it rings some alarm bells to me that Quendearn's very first edit had the edit summary of "repaired a ref link; to be consistant with other cites of Wiki". It also bothers me that, when Historiographer warned Wlkr999 for disruptive editing (which may or may not be justified), Wlk999's response included the line, "BTW, I noticed many editing wars in your editing history"--note that this comment was made after Wlk999 had been editing about 1 week. Wlk999's first 4 edits were reverts of another editor. Of course, all of these things are explainable, but put together I'm suspecting off-wiki coordination, sockpuppetry, and/or a returned user coming back under a new name. I know we've had people blocked for bad behavior on Korean history articles before, but no names spring to my mind. Anyone with any more specific thoughts. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I am new here. If my sentence was too harsh and offended you, Historiographer, I would like to apologize.

Then considering the revision I made, I here need to statement the followings: 1. The refs I used: "Korea, Old and New" and "The Korea, A global studies handbook" are western academic publications (third party press, with Korean authors) and are the standard text-books in US universities on Korea study. The outer links I included are all from .edu sites and with specific authors who are responsible to. "Korea, Old and New", is considered to be "most reliable and useful" by journal of Korean Study (vol.16,pp 118). Anyone can use google scholar to search this book and can find out it has the most citations among the pubs on Korea history. Without any research, Historiographer judged my refs to be unreliable even after I had told him/her what those refs are. For me, such illogical behavior only implies nationalistic emotions and bad intentions. 2. Every sentence (Yes, every sentence) I added or corrected is according to or even from the refs I mentioned above. Historiographer undid many revisions of mine without providing any supporting facts or evidence. I hope admin could check all the edits between Historiographer and I and judge who is telling the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quendearn (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, as a new editor, you may not be aware, but admins don't do that. We don't arbitrate content decisions and pick the "right" answer (at least, we're not supposed to). Our "job" is to handle issues related to user behavior, along with some ancillary things like deletions and page protections. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, if Historiographer continues to undo all my revisions without reasons and supporting evidence as what he has done, what should I do? Who should I ask to conclude the "right" one? Quendearn (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "right" one to be concluded. You have to talk it out at the article's talk page. There's a tab running across the top of every page labeled "discussion" that allows you to discuss these issues. As an editor, you are responsible for reaching a consensus on the contents of the article with other editors. Please read up on some policy topics around content disputes, like WP:BATTLE, WP:CON, and most importantly, WP:WIN. You may also want to peruse WP:TALK, just so you get the hang of how talk page discussions go on. I think those will give you a good basis for resolving a content dispute productively. Remember that Wikipedia is foremost a community, not just a collection of facts. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:MyMoloboaccount

On History of Wrocław user MyMoloboaccount used Davies' "Microcosm" as the primary source for his edits. I bought the book now and it looks like the majority of his edits aren't supported by the book. I listed them here [35]. Some of Davies' statements are twisted and exaggerated to support MyMoloboaccounts agenda, some facts he doesn't like aren't mentioned, and sometimes the edits of MyMoloboaccount aren't supported by the book at all. Karasek (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience user:MyMoloboaccount (aka user:Molobo) has been pushing his extreme Polish nationalist and anti-German ideology for far too long. My own limited experience of him is that he will use any source he can to denigrate Germans and inflate the importance of Poles. He is an overall liability to the project because of his systematic distortions of facts and sources to pursue his agenda. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That user apparently retired two weeks ago. Go ahead and make any changes you see fit so that the history conforms to the book. I'll add the page to my watchlist and back you up just in case any nationalists (of any variety) crawl out of the woodwork. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report the activities of some editors – ethnic abuse and edit warring from the side of eastern european editors

It looks in Wikipedia is the ideological group acting together. Its a strong meatpuppetry here and ideological canvassing. I speak about coordinated edits and canvassing of users: User:Norden1990, User:Fakirbakir and User:Koertefa. They often contact the skilled users User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate – this two users usualy dont edit Wikipedias article, but just a monitor users involved in the articles about eastern european topics, waiting for a their mistakes or provocate them by edit warring or wikistalking, contact admins (CANVASS) and write reports. This situation is a long term.

It is important. User Samofi is talking about 5 Hungarian users.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Little Entente was revived on Wikipedia. I don't care this kind of conspiracy theories, I'm not used to consult with anyone before editing. Sándor Rudnay was a Hungarian cardinal and noble of Slovak origin in the Kingdom of Hungary so I used his Hungarian name. The Slovak Uprising located in Hungary, not in Slovakia which established in 1993 (Before that an independent Slovakia consisted between 1939-1945, a puppet state of the Nazi Germany). --Norden1990 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A. User:Norden1990

Iam offended by his statements against Romanians: „It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself“ [36] „moved Hungarian Romanian War of 1919 to 1919 Hungarian–Romanian War: Ok, but this is a very unfortunate title, because there was an other enemy in Hungary: Czechoslovakia. On the other hand this article is a typical product of Romanian chau...)“ – he meaned chauvinism[37]

Iam offended by his statements against Slovaks and he is deleteing content in the Slovak related articles: „Slovak? No comment“[38] „Slovakia??? When?“[39] „moved Alexander Rudnay to Sándor Rudnay: He was a Hungarian of Slovak descent not a Slovak. He served in the Kingdom of Hungary, Slovakia established in 1993.“ [40] Slovaks were autochtonous nation in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 and distinct Slovak nation durring the Czechoslovakia before 1993. Its ethnic related comments.

He is changeing the names of persons and geographic areas without discussion and consensus: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Hungarian names of the towns and vilages in the Kingdom of Hungary were official only between 1868-1918. In the clear Slovak person should be mentioned primary Slovak names of the towns and villages acording to Elonka´s experiment.

Moveing articles withot consensus and edit warring: [53] [54] [55] [56]

User:Norden1990 is highly disruptive user in the topics connected with Slovak history, he is not able to make a consensus and he uses the ethnic abuse if somebody doesnt agree with him. He is not disruptive only in the case of the modern Hungarian politicians.

B. User:Fakirbakir

I feel a personaly touched by his statements and strong ethnic related abuse: „Samofi you are a Slovak nationalist user who hates Hungarian pages“[57] He was asked for a few times to delete it, but its still there: [58]

I apologised about it[59]. Moreover User:Samofi's only aim is to ruin my work. See the history of Principality of Hungary (speedy deletion, AFD, Renaming process by user Samofi). This page was created by me. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This statement is an agressive political personal attack to my country and to Slovak people: „The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society“[60]

I was new here. I admit it was a strong statement one and a half year ago. I was huffily because there was another comment about the 'good' relations between Slovak majority and Hungarian minority. Unfortunately it is not true in my opinion. But now I know I have to avoid this kind of behavior.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And here other examples of bad behaviour: „You do not understand his complain because you can not see your own troll behavior“ [61] [62] Propagation of „scientific racism“ as a modern theory and edit warring: [63]

I deleted my statement and I wrote this 'It was untethical from me":[64]. Moreover Turanid race was used by Hungarian anthropologists in the socialist era in Hungary. It had nothing to do with Turanism. I tried to explain to another user, because he had offended me[65][66]. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring mentality in the variouse articles and with variouse editors: User:Daizus [67] User:Samofi [68] [69] [70] [71] User:Iadrian_yu [72] User:Octavian8 [73] User:Wladthemlat [74] User:Yopie [75] Other users: [76]

It is all about content disputes.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moveing pages without discussion and consensus: Allied intervention in Hungary [77] Royal Hungary [78]

If you examine the content of page of Allied intervention (1918-20), It had nothing to do with revolution of 1848. It was redirected to 1848. About the other article, the expanded page of Habsburg Royal Hungary was the missing link between Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle ages and Austria-Hungary. An admin tried to do the same thing before me. See its talkpage.[79]. Nobody tried to revert it, because it does make sense.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing: Principality of Nitra [80] Principality of Hungary [81] Against admins [82] „I know that page does not have to be exist as a full page I know why you supported him but.....Please keep your eyes on him“[83]

All is about content disputes because USER SAMOFI used pov statements and his only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Everybody questioned his sources. See talk page of Principality of Hungary or Principality of Nitra. About the 'admin' link I withdrew it and I wrote to the summary 'It was unethical from me'[84].Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Changeing the content without sources: [85] [86]

IT is content dispute again. And User Samofi knows well Great Moravia was annihilated in 902. It is historical fact. What about the names? In 1570-1711 Transylvania was ruled primary by Hungarian princes. They have a right to use Hungarian names.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir add a strongly negative contributions to Slovak related articles. He is not neutral and he is often involved in edit warring. His work consist with writing the synthesis. He usualy finds a nationalistic hungarian source what is just a minor theory. Than he is writing a new article like a synthesis to prove that this minor theory is right. His canvassing is based on ethnical selection: [87] - Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history...Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás) - it is ethnical based canvassing, it should be no place in wikipedia for this.

These are biased statements. "nationalistic sources". IF I use Hungarian academic works for sources It will be nationalist? Or Sources from English authors.?Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

C. User:Koertefa

His edits are usualy strongly anti-slovakian and anti-romanian. He is not creating a new articles but he usualy helps to other editors with edit warring after canvassing. He is involved ONLY in the articles where are often edit wars, so he came here only from the ideological reasons. Here is his history: [88] Its only edit warring and ideological warring at talkpages. How many of the new sources or sentences he added? How many articles he created? A planty of users make a disruptions but it should be balanced by benefication of wikipedia. In this case its only disruptions. He is changeing the names of towns against agreeoment that it will the Slovak names of the towns: [89] [90]

He is deleteing the names of the people with slovak descent: [91]

He is often involved in edit wars: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]

He vandalized my talk page for a several times: [99]

Contributions of User:Koertefa are motivated only to enforce his point of view and edit warring. He is usualy edit warring against my edits and edits of User:Omen1229 --Samofi (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• User Samofi is a "two times" banned user because of his editing in connection with Hungarian articles. His only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Now I see he has another aim to ban Hungarian users. I could not work properly because of his disruptive editing. check his history here.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE

Dear user Fakirbakir, please write about your edits, not about mine. I was banned for them - it was a case 2 weeks ago and 1,5 year ago. Stop to attack me: His only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Now I see he has another aim to ban Hungarian users. Is it possible that this user say this statements without a proofs? Its clear battleground mentality based on ethnicity/nationality. I dont want your ban, but you broken rules and you should awake it. And stop with attacks on my person coz this report is about you. With your last edits you destroyed my report with your addings in to my text [100]. This user is more and more agressive with his edits and he is not aware of it. --Samofi (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I destroyed nothing. I have signed my comments. You was banned because you did not sign your comments. You should not state untrue things.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking all the time about me? Its again your manipulation. When I was banned because I did not sign my comments? Iam waiting for a link (proof). You added the text into my text, so now its hard to read it. You cannot instert your text into mine. Please fix it. --Samofi (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering sanctions

Okay, stop it. You've all talked quite enough now. I'll be looking into this at some moment when I find a bit of time for it, and I more or less expect I'll end up banning the lot of you together, unless somebody else beats me to it. I recommend you now make a brief statement each explaining why you yourself should not be banned, but don't bother talking any further about why the other party should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame. I edited a lot for the common good. However I can accept if User Fut. Perf wants to judge my future here. I am tired to work with editors like User Samofi and I know wiki loses a lot of editors because of this sort of problems. I do not mind...Fakirbakir (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I've not seen anything but disruptive and contentious editing from any of the above editors, and have seen no indication of anyone's intention to de-escalate their conflict in order to reach consensus. Right now, I would say that none of these editors is even close to being an asset to the community. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever checked User Koertefa's or User Norden1990's editing? They are very diligent editors. Norden1990 is a professional "biography writer".Fakirbakir (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support' block of all the squabbling editors here, per FutPerf. Maybe if they can only edit their talk page they'll stop making accusatory statements about each other and be willing to examine, and dare we hope? change their own behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain it? Was I disruptive when I created new pages (Pelso plate, Tisza Plate, Komlosaurus carbonis, Principality of Hungary, István Koháry etc) or tried to improve and rationalize a lot of articles especially in connection with Hungarian history? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you should wait for explanations of the other mentioned editors. This method is biased without them.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the third, maybe fourth, time this issue has appeared on ANI. Wouldn't editing in these articles come under WP:DIGWUREN sanctions? --Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

AH, I just re-read it to double check. Perhaps, the editors who are not already warned under WP:DIGWUREN should be placed on notice and the whole lot directed to WP:DRN. If that doesn't sort it out, then sanctions and blocks are the only remaining recourse. Fakirbakir, I should mention that Nmate has been blocked for a month as of yesterday so you'll not be hearing from them. --Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

May I point out the obvious? It is high time for admins to take responsibility for the mistakes they make. user:Samofi was indefinitely blocked already. It's safe to say that anti-Hungarian edits and other issues were covered under that block with the general term "disruptive editing". The the exact same admin who thought it was a good idea to unblock [101] the now banned user:Iaaasi Unblocked Samofi a few weeks later [102]. I estimate that user:Iaaasi wasted hundreds of hours from the lives of community members, and admins forcing them to detect, tag block sockpuppets [103] and various other disruptions. Iaaasi of course, being a proven Hungarian-hating editor intervened for Samofi so that Samofi could get unblocked. The now banned Iaaasi went as far as claiming previously unclaimed sockpuppets as his own just so Samofi could get unblocked [104]. So the community wasted a few hundred hours on Iaaasi after Iaaasi's unblocked, but what happened to Samofi? Well the except same thing with the exception of Samofi edits a lot less frequently. Iaaasi had thousands and thousands of edits, so he got banned relatively quickly, Samofi only has a grand total of 800 something edits over several years, a much slower rate. But it doesn't mean that he in general wasn't just as disruptive per edit, just with a lot fewer edits. He was unblocked by the exact same admin who unblocked Iaaasi. So a known and by admin confirmed disruptive user was dumped back on the community by an admin. No matter he was already indefinitely blocked for being so disruptive, let's just unblock him, while admins wash their hands of the consequences. Then surprise surprise, the same user, who was disruptive enough to get indeffed, has problems with other editors again! Who saw that coming? Who would have thought that he will be disruptive and attack other users, edit war and appear on ANI. Who would have thought that he would have a problem once again with Hungarian editors, when before his original block he already wrote "Its not good for Hungarians because majority of Hungarian inventors were Jews" and "Hungarian users are not neutral.". It seems like that this recent incident is nothing new and a direct consequence of unblocking a once already 100% proven and by admin confirmed disruptive user. I don't like how admins wash their hands of any responsibility when a problem surfaces that the admin corps itself created by unblocking irresponsibly and without due process. The solution here is to not unblock users like Iaaasi who are sure to cause issues further down the line (yes Samofi edits less often its a big plus and because of the editing rate difference Iaaasi was a lot bigger drain on the community). Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I wouldn't even be surprised if Iaaasi is somehow involved here, according to the user:Iaaasi user page, this user is known for "soliciting users by e-mail" one such case was a user from Slovakia who had a lot of manufactured "conflict" with Hungarian editors, over several articles, and made several reports and complained to admins about Hungarian editors (all under the directions of user:Iaaasi). one such report We also know that Iaaasi found it important to intervene for Samofi's unblock more than a year ago already. Hobartimus (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Let me also respond to the small part where I am mentioned after all that's why I was notified and called into this ANI thread. I am mentioned in a single sentence, User:Samofi writes that I, Hobartimus "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article", a statement which seems outright insane considering how I have over 12 000 edits and user:Samofi 835. This is so out of place that I started to think about it. Why would he write such a sentence?? If we consider user:Iaaasi "helped out" user Samofi in writing part, or all of this "report" as he wrote few dozen previous ones against Hungarian editors then the statement is not so out of place any more. User Iaaasi has hundreds of sockpuppets IP socks and accumulated thousands upon thousands of edits in the past 1.5 years or so. So from Iaaasi's POV, its not so insane to think that I Hobartimus don't edit that much because in the past year or so Iaaasi had more edits than me. He also owned over hundreds of socks and IPs so he would think of himself as someone who contributes a great deal under many aliases. But Samofi who has 835 grand total edits? It's impossible to think that he would write something like that by himself. He would never think that someone with 12 000 edits is not an active editor or that they "usually don't edit". So If Samofi wrote this report by himself its utter nonsense but the whole thing starts to make sense from the POV of Iaaasi and his countless thousands of edits that he made while he socked all over Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And here it is again. We don't care what other people have done; this is about your actions. The very fact that none of you can do anything but point fingers is the problem here. Quite frankly, it's not productive, and the project is probably better without the distraction. Future left you a very simple task above: convince us that you don't deserve to be sanctioned, without talking about why another party should. Hobartimus, you have failed at that simple task in epic proportions. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vanisaac I ask you to withdraw your personal attack comment above. Your statement above that I need to prove anything is incorrect, because I am not accused of anything. is a pretty outrageous personal attack and deserves an apology. Hobartimus (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)For others reading this, I suspect that user:Vanisaac didn't actually read this section of ANI that he commented above and this is why he didn't notice there isn't any evidence listed against me in all of this wall of text above. Therefore with no evidence listed against me I need nothing to disprove. I ask future participants that they read the discussions first before they comment on them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is just the point. A simple "Hey, there doesn't really seem to be any actual accusation against me." would have been perfect. Instead, you took your opportunity to respond to drag this conversation back into tit-for-tat accusations that are the problem. Future indicates that he didn't even consider you to be part of this matter, and neither did I. I'm not sure after your responses above that that will ever be a consensus again. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What personal attack? Now you're pointing fingers at Vanisaac instead of addressing the original request. He's right; you talked about Samofi and Iaaasi, accusing them of POV pushing and apparantly being anti Hungarian; you don't see that you are making attacks, and Vanisaac is only trying to get you to respond to Fut.Perf.'s very simple request? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't referring to Hobartimus; I'm not even sure his name had come up before at all. I'll also emphasise that it wasn't me who put up the sub heading of "proposed blanket ban" up there. I certainly didn't propose any such thing; what I said was that I would be looking into everybody's conduct (and then possibly swing the DIGWUREN hammer, where appropriate, but on an individual basis.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec once again response to KC) The one where he didn't notice that there is no subsection titled "Hobartimus" and no evidence listed against Hobartimus. No diffs from Hobartimus. No nothing. user:Iaaasi is banned for his disruptions over a lot of CheckUser confirmed socks and IP socks. and I'm not accusing him of anything only stating facts, any of which I can back up with even more evidence if requested. It's all in SPI, tagged socks, etc etc. Samofi was indefinitely blocked it's also a fact not an accusation I will respond to everything if you have further questions. Hobartimus (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be a simple case of mistaken identity, not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the sub-heading, and I apologize if it is misleading. I was only trying to split it from the conversation of the third party, above. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will write about myself. My name was calling here for a few times with negative statements. Why I should not be blocked? My first experiences with Wikipedia were about 5 years ago with this acount. I was just a testing it, probably with the not so high level of the english language. I wanted to improve slovak related articles. In that time I was naive and I thought that we can write all sourced theories. In that time I firstly noticed that some opinions of majority or the singnificant minority of the scholars are hidden. Than I had a free time from Wikipedia - I had time to improve my language and watching the situation in Wikipedia. After that I saw, that Slovak related historical articles are written mostly from Hungarian point of view and our sources were ignored and discommend, I wanted to show next singnificant opinions of the scholars. In that time I was writing my diploma about slovaks in former hungarian kingdom, so I had a knowledge from czech and slovak historians about slovak history in hungarian kingdom. but my sources were deleted, so I started to be "agresive" and I was pushing this sources without consensus, but this deletion of my sources were wikistalking. I was relatively new after a long time without editing. I told some nationalistic sentences. In that time I was blocked for a half year. I was thinking about my behaviour and I was studying the rules of Wikipedia. I told to myself that I will not abusive to other users and I hope that last half year I was not. Also I was studying english and also hungarian sources about our common Slovak-Hungarian history. I told to myself that I will use mostly neutral english language sources which are in the majority or in the significant minority and the same thing I will expecting from the other users. But if they broken this "my" rule I broken 3RR, but it was a mistake and I was sorry about that. I was blocked for a week. I had again time for a thinking. I told to myself, that I will use talk pages and noticeboards to discuss a topics important for me. I will not edit impulsive - I will write a longer texts and thinking about them. I want to improve articles connected with Slovakia. Firstly I would like to fight against original research and in the second case against nationalistic abuse, because I know that human can change. I dont wish nothing bad to this users and I would like to cooperate with them in future but we have to respect each-other. I believe that I made a big progress in Wikipadia from the past time to the present time. You can see, that my "disruptive" edits of last months were associated with one article (Principality of Hungary) - so its not about ideology or nationality. Its just against original research and synthesis. My activity to improve this article was broken because of canvassing and not respecting of bold-revert-discuss cyclus. Iam sure that I can be useful in improving wikipedia and if is my behaviour still inappropriate I can be better in future. About my contacts with other users or sockpuppetry. I did not contact any user in the different place as here. I had 1 sockpuppet - CsabaBabba I told its me and it was a long time ago. From that time Iam "clean" :) So.. Positives: I started to more discuss, I dont abuse other users and I stoped to use a nationalistic sentences, Iam controling adherence of "no original research" and Iam looking for a users who should be reported in DIGWUREN... Negatives: bad history of my edits.. Thanx for reading. --Samofi (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And connect me with Iaaasi? Its serious attack and paranoid theory. Its no proofs for this. If there are a objective evidences I would like to see them. Iam individualist. --Samofi (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So long as you are here Samofi, you could answer a question I was wondering. What do you think, why did Iaaasi contact you through the Slovak wikipedia? Was that because people are less likely to notice it there? Also why did you write that I "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article" I have over 12500 edits and you have only have about 800. So why would you write something like that unless somehow you have a lot more edits than me. To me this is clearly something that Iaaasi wrote, I see no other possible explanation. Hobartimus (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know that he contacted me or I dont remember. When I was last time logged at Slovak Wikipedia? I forgotten password.. It was a years ago.. I dont want to be connected with nobody. I never made personal canvassing or contacting of the users. As you can see, in this case I called all editors and I knew that some of this editors can say a lot of dirty about my past. But I dont live for nostalgic history, I wanna live for future. I would like to create something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Greek_and_Turkish_wikipedians_cooperation_board for Slovaks and Hungarians. There can be admin which will regulate us and there can be a few neutral mediators. All big problems we should discuss there - its prevention against nationalistic oriented edits. I told incorrectly "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article". If you were offended sorry - it was meaned that you usually remove the reverts, change few words or letters or translate slovak names to hungarian. Honestly how many a new articles you created or how many sources you have add? Iam sure it will similary number between me and you. When I was banned I wrote a long report about you (only in my pc), you are not so clean as you think but I did not report you here, I only mentioned you here. Last half year of your editation here you did not made a ethnical abuse, last time I remember an inappropriate comment about Matica slovenska so I think you changed a little. But you should stop to hunting people and more edit in the area of your interests. Now you should start to understand different opinions and respect them. Maybe new http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Slovak_and_Hungarian_wikipedians_cooperation_board will open the way for our cooperation. --Samofi (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And Iam surprised that so experienced and skilled editor as you talking about yourself, did not have an idea how to solve this problem. Really was the best way to solve this problem edit warring and writing of thousands of reports? If our historians and your historians have a different reflection of history why it should not be mentioned a both significant view-points? We need 1 admin and 3-4 neutral mediators. Controversial topics will edit only if all neutral mediators and admin find a consensus. --Samofi (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Litch, again

Resolved

 – Referred to WP:RFC/U causa sui (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The first ANI report on this user was in July of 2006. I've brought this issue here before and the end result was an only-warning being issued to the user by a non-admin. I didn't think the outcome was adequate given the user's history of blocks for incivility but wasn't willing to push the issue. They have edited my archives, edited ANI archives (a string of 5 edits there), and continue to attempt to insert highly contentious information into TOMS Shoes with unreliable sources. While that's more of a content dispute, every time they add a link, they mark it as an "Undo" of my revision. I've attempted to talk with this editor but it usually results in me being called a coward or being accused of being an employee of TOMS. All I want is to make WP as encyclopedic and reliable as I can as can be seen by my years of service and 10k+ edits and this user, with a background of blocks and incivility, is making that difficult for me. Please help. OlYeller^Talktome 13:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you're trying to show a long-term pattern of disruptive - or at least annoying - editing, is that not what WP:RFC/U is for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know. I've never had to do much convincing that an editor is violation policy when I have an issue with them. Are you suggesting I take this there? It seems like an easy situation to assess to me but if you need more information, I can certainly write a report like these for you. OlYeller^Talktome 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...and can I ask why you did not advise the editor of this ANI filing, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm confused, quite frankly. The user has been blocked twice for incivility and has told me to bite him and has called me a coward (I still don't understand why I get that one) on multiple occasions in the links I provided above. That's just towards me. In the same edit he calls most Wikipedians sucks ups and tells another editor to remove the warning from his talk page and to "keep your fish fetishes to yourself" (I have no idea what he's referring to). Is this not a clear case? If there's something I'm missing, please help me to understand. A block seems obvious to me but if you think the editor needs banned, as I mentioned, I'll start the report but I'm not sure if that's necessary. OlYeller^Talktome 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot. I'll notify him now. I'm feeling sort of attacked for reporting incivility. Have I done something seriously wrong here? OlYeller^Talktome 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Notified. OlYeller^Talktome 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Thank you for bringing this up to broader attention. I think Bwilkins only meant to suggest that a request for comment on user conduct might be in order, not that you are in the wrong. causa sui (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong. There are certain policies regarding posting at AN/I (such as notification) and when those aren't completed people tend to get reminded or questioned. I don't think Bwilkins meant to come off as confrontational, it was just kinda quick and to the point. But I know what you're saying, to a newcomer to this board it can seem a little aggressive, it's just part of the AN/I subculture. N^oformation ^Talk 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the ANI archives. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• There is indeed a long-term pattern of abuse and incivility here, with wild accusations strewn about. A final (and only) warning was issued last month, and I think any next abuse (in edit summaries or on talk pages) should be acted upon with an immediate block. In my opinion, there is not enough right now to block, and they seemed to have toned it down some since that warning--and this is not the place to discuss the content of their recent edits, such as this one. Litch would do well, though, to stay away from TOMS Shoes and from OlYeller--but past interactions suggest they don't take advice well. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Drmies probably has this right, but an RFC/U is still a good idea for concerns about such a long-term pattern. causa sui (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Much thanks, folks. I'll start a report. OlYeller^Talktome 20:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP2E essay

Resolved

This is a request for deletion of the Wikipedia:BLP2E essay that was created by administrator User:Toddst1.

At the top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna article, there is an extensive discussion about how notable prior press coverage is complicating the BLP1E determination. The nominator redlinked to Wikipedia:BLP2E in what I believe was an attempt to acknowledge the issue and also an attempt at humor. This discussion is still in the article, but the wikilinks to BLP2E have since been removed.

Toddst1 subsequently created an essay by that title. The essay seems to be tailored to the substance of that particular debate and I judge its future value at zero. I believe that the essay has a POV slant that needs an NPOV edit, but editing this essay as part of a deletion discussion seems silly. The essay is a joke about a joke and severely misses the point. Moreover, by putting his POV comments in a redlinked essay when they should have been on the talk page, Toddst1's injected his POV into the deletion discussion in a way that is unavailable to other editors and in a way that I believe contravenes talk page guidelines.

I think that the creation of this essay by Toddst1 is an excellent example of gaming the system and I asked him to revert himself: User_talk:Toddst1#BLP2E_article. I think that he should delete this essay.Jarhed (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what WP:MFD is for. I don't really see any "gaming of the system" here; I have no opinion on whether the essay should remain, but I don't see how it harmed the AFD discussion, or "injected a POV" into the discussion (what does this even mean?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

By making his opinion on the deletion issue in the form of an essay rather than by placing it on the talk page, his edit was not normally available as part of the talk page discussion. It is unreasonable to expect deletion discussion participants to have to discuss a standard deletion in such a non-standard way. In addition, putting his comments in an essay gave them a color of authority, especially by less knowledgable editors.Jarhed (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the view that the subject of the article under discussion actually has notability for more than 1 event, I don't see a problem with the essay. Nor do I think its existence is problematically impacting the AfD discussion. In any case, as Floquenbeam says, the appropriate venue for discussion deletion of the essay is WP:MFD. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I suggested. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I would like to get this difference of opinion cleared up. I believe that creating this essay as part of a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system and that this type of edit should not be done by anybody. If this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do, then I would like to know that.Jarhed (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the creation of it was rather pointy, and would cheerfully enter in an opinion to delete if it goes to MfD. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of going to MfD, but I think that allowing editors to create and edit essays so that they are tailored for particular talk page debates would be a disaster.Jarhed (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it happen a couple of times, the idea/need/desire for an essay arises out of a discussion. Its not against any policy I have heard of - it would only be an issue if it was like naming users or attacking in nature or something like that but this one Wikipedia:BLP2E is none of those things. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know more about the essays you cite. Were they similiar to this one, so tailored to the argument that they could have appeard in a redlink?Jarhed (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What administrator action are you requesting here? It's not an attack page and isn't speedyable. If you think it should be deleted, send it to MfD. Otherwise, a discussion regarding the value of the essay should probably happen at the Village Pump or on the essay's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples I can think of offhand are mbz1's Properly follow a proper policy essay created in response to an Arb Enforcement discussion, deleted as a bad-faith essay creation. Also, JClemens' Wikipedia:What is one event is created in response to a common point of contention in AfDs and DRVs, but its actually not so bad of a point. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To get pointy myself, any good point made in BLP2E properly belongs in BLP1E and was created as a separate essay precisely to insert an essay into the deletion debate. If the BLP2E essay has any value as a separate essay at all, the administrator could have waited until after the debate closed to create it in order to avoid improperly influencing the debate.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know if administrator Toddst1 action in creating this essay as part of influencing a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system, or if this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do. If this is not the correct forum to ask that question then please point me to the correct one.Jarhed (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Essays express the opinion of the creator - it would be no different if he'd posted the screed on his talkpage, as long as it's just expressing his opinion, and not attacking people that's OK. Now drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. If somebody has something they feel is essay-worthy, as long as it isn't attacking somebody, what made them feel it was necessary is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First Marshal of the Empire

Resolved

 – cut-and-paste move repaired. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722

Another naive redirect.

• Creation of redirect
• First Marshal of the Empire

Yaris678 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And? What do you expect ANI to do about it?--v/r - TP 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not an issue for AN/I. If the IP's edits of this sort are long-term and disruptive, WP:AIV would be the place to report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides that this issue is better off at WP:AIV if there is long term abuse, I think my "And?" is a very serious point. "Another naive redirect" and two links is very vague for an ANI thread.--v/r - TP 17:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Perhaps I should have said naive page move. Similar to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#Naive move of "Mines Wellness City".

Someone has moved a page by creating a new page and changing the old page to a redirect, as indicated by the links above. This is a problem because it does not preserve the article history.

If there is a better way to describe that or a better location to alert admins then I would be interested to know.

I am of the understanding that only someone with admin privileges can sort that out. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the terminology you are looking for is a "cut-and-paste move" — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Indeed, it was fixed shortly after you opened this thread. There was really no need to return it to the front page. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Blusts and Glücksgas Stadium

Resolved

 – Blocked by Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated re-insertins of unreadable text such as [[105]], and [106] and [107]. User has been asked a few times to explain the purpose of the insertions. This account was blocked in July for the same issue. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it back. They should definitely be blocked, since they're way past 3RR, in spirit if not in fact. Especially since they don't seem willing to discuss the matter. The large amount of non-free images they've uploaded that have been summarily deleted don't help either. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...and they're blocked: not the first time they have been blocked for edit-warring on this very same article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

tz database & lawsuit

• JulDes (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• TZ master (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Folks might want to keep an eye on tz database and the redirect at Thomas Shanks given the lawsuit mentioned in this Slashdot post. The User:JulDes and User:TZ master accounts seem a little odd given the timing and account creation dates, but I'm unsure if these may or may not be the same individual (and if so, maybe he just needs an explanation that using multiple undisclosed accounts while editing the same material tends to be frowned upon). The editing of Thomas Shanks (a redirect which had existed since 2006) by both accounts definitely seemed a little unusual. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

user ozgurmulazimoglu and user omulazimoglu

Hello;

Years ago i signed up for wikipedia with the name ozgurmulazimoglu. Years passed and i did sign up on commons with username ozgurmulazimoglu. One day when i moved from commons to wikipedia i saw also a global account name ozgurmulazimoglu was created automatically on wikipedia. And then somone said i was sockpuppeting with two user names. And then a lot of problems came out. First i had to sign out and sign in back when i move between commons and wikipedia. And then someone blocked ozgurmulazimoglu on wikipedia and said he has puppet. Then when i sign to wikipedia with omulazimoglu it autoblocks me and says that your ip was used by ozgurmulazimoglu. I made no sockpupetry. I only need one account not two. I have asked on commons to change my screen name from ozgurmulazimoglu to omulazimoglu as it to be same with the name on wikipedia. It is on progress but everytime i sign in wikipedia with omulazimoglu it auto blocks me. I am sick of it. Pls someone show me a way. I need one simple account only. Thank you.MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lemme see if I can sort this out.

Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs) is your current account used here, was created in 2007 and exists only on en-wiki.

Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk · contribs) is your unified account on other wikis, created in 2009 on Commons, but was blocked here on en-wiki in January 2010.

Apparently you were blocked because you made the mistake of using both accounts in parallel during some time between November 2009 and January 2010, while also engaging in some contentious editing. The blocking admin, EyeSerene, was formally in the right about this, but since both accounts have so obviously similar names I think it is obvious that there was no deceptive intention on your part.

Let's do the following: I'll unblock the unified account, you promise to abandon the old non-unified one, and we redirect the user pages so the relation between the two will remain obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is racist

That's right, you read rightly, we're racist. Or at least most of use are. How do I know this? Because Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) told me so at Talk:Antisemitism (warning, wall of text, near the end of the post). And what makes us so racist? What vile, detestable racist acts have we committed? Why we've got an article on antisemitism that makes the incredible claim that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. I know, I know; it's hard to believe but that's what the article says. If that doesn't shock you enough, would you believe that in his valiant, and so far unrewarded, effort to eliminate this calumny from our pages, the only response he's gotten has been repeated (although sometimes impatient) requests to explain what reliably sourced changes he'd like to make? Can you imagine the injustice of it all? On top of that, a number of editors have (I blush to say it) intimated that his only interest in the article is to troll the talk page and annoy other editors with long, pointless rants that go nowhere and can't possibly improve the encyclopedia.

Now I don't want to be unfair to my fellow editor, but it looks as though the stress of this has gotten to him as he seems to have violated WP:POINT by removing a few thousand bytes of text from Islamophobia based on an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Check the edit summary wording not allowed in anti-Semitism, not allowed here. That sort of goes against WP:POINT, doesn't it? Now I know how trying it can be to edit here for someone who is right while everyone else is wrong, but he also, um, slipped a little bit and called not just the community, but a number of editors by name, racist just a few days ago. I think the continuous exposure to the racism here (everyone knows we're another Stormfront) may be getting to be too much for him.

Now, I was sort of hoping there was something we could do for Noloop to spare him any more of the cruel, unscrupulous, bigoted treatment he's been getting here and I got an idea while I was looking at his user page. If you look at this old version of his user page, he actually made an effort, about a year ago to leave Wikipedia forever by scrambling his password, but something must have gone wrong because he came back in August of this year. Since he's made it clear on a number of occasions how much he dislikes that place and how little it would bother him to be permanently unable to edit here, most recently in his post at the Antisemitism talk page linked above, do you think we could oblige him? I know he'd be a lot happier if we did, and so would everyone he interacts with here. (Note:relevant section at Talk:Antisemitism has been collapsed) Incidentally, his current user page mentions that he controls another account: Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'm sure we wouldn't want him to be able to return under that account and be subjected to any more of the racist bigotry that's been directed at him until now.

Please! This editor needs our help! --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)