Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2005 (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 11 January 2010 (→User:DegenFarang attempted WP:OUTING and WP:HOUND and other abuse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:Badagnani

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

Hi, all. I'm really not sure where to start here. I've been running into trouble with Badagnani pretty much every time I run into him. Edit warring, incivility, AGF problems -- pretty much everything except outright vandalism. A lot of my edits are geared toward removing spam and listcruft, and to that end, I've been working a lot on pages of professional sports teams, and musicians and their instruments.

Currently, I'm finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid an edit war with a user who seems bent on provoking one. At goblet drum, I deleted an a set of spam links, a list of allegedly notable players (some so notable they were redlinked), and a list of translations of "goblet drum" into other languages. On the last point, I was removing the material because it was unsourced and because it violated WP:WWIN, specificallyWP:NOTDIC, which specifies that lists of translations are appropriate for Wiktionary and not Misplaced Pages.

I was quickly reverted by Badagnani, who claimed the information was "absolutely essential." He said he wanted to discuss the change at the talk page, but he never posted. In turn, another userreverted him. All was fine for a month, until Badagnani again decided that the edit was "ridiculous" and reverted it, again without discussion.

Although his edit summaries frequently implore other editors to discuss their changes, Badagnani consistently declines to participate himself. Just the same, I attempted to get a conversation going at the talk page, but was met with dismissive comments, mild insults and no effort to address my concerns. I reiterated my concerns, but after nearly a week, they were still left unaddressed. I therefore left a message at Badagnani's talk page, which he answered only to accuse me of attacking him and being ignorant of Persian translations. I made a final effort to get my questions answered, but to no avail.

Because he made it clear he was not interested in providing sources or explaining why WP:NOTDIC should be disregarded, I went ahead and removed the material again. Inside of 10 minutes, I was reverted again, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary.

Badagnani then went on an editing tear, adding references (some germane, so less so) and the like. In hopes of finding a middle ground, I tried to begin tagging different types of goblet drums with the "Goblet-shaped drum" category in hopes that it could serve as a sufficient collection of the different subtypes that Badagnani was trying to assemble. In doing so, I happened upon Badagnani engaging in an edit war with User:Ronz at Glong yao, where he was fighting to pass off a coatracked advertisement as a reliable source. At that talk page, I discovered a discussion nearly identical to the one atTalk:goblet drum: another editor raises concerns, Badagnani (1) dismisses them; (2) makes accusations of bad faith editing; and (3) reverts.

Additionally, a review of his edits shows that he is removing "unreferenced BLP" tags from articles he's written but failed to source . Of course, restoring them only invites him to revert without discussion.

The most annoying thing about this is that Badagnani really could be a very useful editor. The bulk of his work consists of good-faith, high-quality edits, especially in areas that are typically neglected by most editors or where most editors lack the expertise to work confidently. But like Terrell Owens, he is creating a distraction that prevents other editors from moving forward and that is sure to be a turn-off to newbies.

I'm hoping someone here has the charm or heft to effect a change. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the unsourced BLP, he may be counting the ELs as sources; did you try explaining that inline cites are better for verification and that we need significant coverage in reliable sources? He should know better than to be obstinate in his editing, so have you thought of filing aWP:RFC/U? I can't see any behaviour that requires admin intervention. Fences&Windows 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there does seem to be a pattern of low-level incivility and edit-warring, if this block log is anything to go by: Fences&Windows 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This behavior is identical to that which lead up to some of his previous blocks. See his RFCU for more details. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We almost indef blocked him the last time I remember this coming up. We didn't, so it comes up again. -GTBacchus 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The last ANI on him appears to be Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Badagnani_category_blanking_again.

1RR was discussed as well as an indef block.--Ronz (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree that there isn't any behavior that warrants intervention. It appears to me that Badagnani has become adept at gaming the system, pushing his edit wars to the edge of WP:3RR and then coming back when the time is right. If you'll take a look at his record (and it took a while for me to compile this, so I don't blame you for not getting around to it), you'll see that Badagnani's behavior has been marked by the same tendentious patterns, incivility and disregard for consensus-building for several years now.

Allow me to demonstrate. I am not the first to find that Badagnani is quick to revert constructive edits that he happens to oppose, ask for discussion then refuse to particpate. Nor am I the first to suggest that he is a habitual edit warrior. In fact, his disruptive edits have been brought to the attention of adminstrators numerous times.

I'll hasten to add that he wasn't found to have been in the wrong every single time someone had a complaint with him, but it's clear from his record that he is either unable or unwilling to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a manner that will keep the project moving forward. Like I said above: A lot of the work he's done has been fantastic, but at this point, Badagnani has proven himself to be more trouble than he's worth. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I'll end with a salientquote:

   Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long
   enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter.
   Badagnani 3:58 am, 11 May 2007, Friday (2 years, 7 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)

— Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about that 1RR again? I got turned down last time. And yes, his approval rating among the folks at WP:VIET seems to have steadily gone into the floor YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support imposition of WP:1RR. Badagnani's contributions are valuable enough that we should try anything we can to avoid an indefinite block. At the same time, he needs to understand that the community's patience with his disruptive editing patterns is stretched very, very thin. —Bdb484 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Badagnani. He hasn't indicated yet that he has any idea what the problem is, but maybe this'll work. It would be great if he doesn't have to go, although I'm not optimistic. -GTBacchus 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Badagnani. --Kleinzach 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The content at the center of this issue is - the local names of an instrument (Goblet drum#Names specifically).
-Adding alternative names is in-line with advice atMisplaced Pages:Lead section#Alternative names, but in conflict with information at WP:NOTDICT.
-Per examples like Vodka and Sushi, we clearly have to have at least some local names. Per examples like Harry Potter in translation and List of Asterix characters#Getafix it is sometimes very informative to have long lists of translations/local names. But we also clearly don't want 250 translations of the word "spoon" atspoon.
-This whole issue needs a wider discussion, somewhere appropriate. Badagnani is not at all clearly in the wrong here.

That said, Badagnani is very uncommunicative, and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication. Having 2 editors hounding him for years isn't helping though. I'd support 1RR for Badagnani, if Ronz and Grayoshi2x could refrain from reverting/harassing/poking Badagnani (eg this kind of provocative behavior is pointy and unhelpful). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the content at the center of this issue", I'm not sure I agree that it's the name of a musical instrument. I think whatever edit you're talking about is absolutely not why we're talking about Badagnani here at AN/I. The "center of this issue" is precisely that: "Badagnani is very uncommunicative and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication," as you say. That's the only problem. It's not the nature of the one straw that matters; it's the back of the camel.

If Ronz and Grayoshi2x agree to give him a mile's berth, his communication style will simply create more Ronzes and Grayoshi2xes. Do we have to issue restraining orders, one by one, to everyone that Badagnani unintentionally treats like shit? I don't agree with the way Ronz in handling the situation, and I've let him know that, but if Ronz were to go on extended vacation to Mars tomorrow, Badagnani would still be causing problems here. That will remain true until he somehow grasps that the way he's dealing with other people is crap, and needs to change if he's going to work on this project. We're doing a terrible job of sending him that message so far, because it's been this long with virtually no progress.

Can anyone even get him to recognize what he's doing that upsets so many people? I tried to tell him for weeks, and then I gave up, and I'm not welcome on his talk page anymore. Can anyone tell me how they see this resolving, realistically in this universe?-GTBacchus 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your approach and attitude very disturbing GTB. Badagnani edits in good faith and he does an ENORMOUS amount of content work. Like other editors who are prolific, he sometimes comes into conflict. That Ronz and Grayoshi have been allowed to pursue conflicts with this editor for this long is outrageous and your involvement has encouraged these highly destructive behaviors. There are lots of areas of the encyclopedia and they don't need to seek out his work. As Quiddity points out, there are good reasons and policies for his editing. He's not easy to work with, but many many many many many editors do okay with it. So the obvious solution is for those who can't work with him to avoid him. Putting him on a 1RR while allowing stalkers to continue harassing him is outrageous. You have a long history of conflict with him, and it's unfortunate that you've returned to trying to box him in instead of working with him and helping him in a collegial manner. Why don't you follow dispute resolution on the drum naming issue and whatever other CONTENT ISSUES there are, and cease trying to block anyone who doesn't toe the line you think they should. Alternatively, enforce an interaction ban with those causing problems. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, ChildofMidnight; I'll think about what you said. At present, I disagree with almost all of it, but I'll inevitably think about it, and possibly modify my behavior accordingly. I'm glad that you recognize my extreme frustration that stemmed from attempting to help this editor in the past. I don't trust your judgment six inches, though, and I'm extremely glad that you're not in any position of power here. I find your "approach and attitude" at least as disturbing as you find mine. Jolly. You really burned your bridge with me; good work.

Also, I like how you assume wrong shit about what I believe, and what I support. Bye now; I hope not to hear from you again. -GTBacchus 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a 1RR restriction and/or another RFC/U. I have also seen Badagnani revert very constructive cleanup efforts and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion over the reverts. I feel this behaviour is very disruptive to the quality of the project. ThemFromSpace 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose GTBacchus has been well aware that I'm no fan of Badagnani at all. Granted, I actually gave up long ago that he would listen to my repeated pleas not to insert annoying hidden questions or original research and urge me to find materials or expand articles for satisfying his curiosity. Just like some editor said last May, if we want to peacefully cooperate with him, we should use special conversation skills for him(yeah, that may sound too lenient). Though I bite the bullet since his general contribution is very helpful to improve Misplaced Pages especially articles with a small viewership. I also highly doubt that "informal" WP:Mentorship would work for him since as he's promoted himself, he has a high pride as a "long-term productive editor". In his view, mentors should revert for him or block his opponents from engaging in disruptive blanking campaign no matter what they complain. Due to the outright misunderstanding on purposes of mentorship, GTBacchus's efforts got no gain.
• However, I think the aforementioned one-sided IRR would be not effective but rather increase high chances for his "current" opponents such asUser:Ronz and User:GraYoshi2x to take advantage of it to block him. For example, Grayoshi2x's had been poking on Badagnani for quite a while by intentionally removing Wiktionary links from Chinese characters within articles" against the formed consensus on WT:CHINA in May. After both were recently reported to WP:AN3 and admonished by admins, User:Rjanag and User:EdJohnston, the consensus that Grayoshi2x solely objected was reconfirmed at WT:CHINA#Wiktionary_redux. Neither did bother to open a discussion on the issue. After the incident, Grayoshi2x has now introduced a new way of "provoking Badagnani" by removing "names of subjects" from many articles including Napa cabbage, Longan,Hoa Kỳ, List of pasta, Ron Kovic, Kai-lan, Daikon, Lychee, Lettuce and others. Unlike Grayoshi2x's edit summaries, he also has not bothered himself to open a discussion at the pertinent talk page. I was just close to report the both to here due to their another set of endless WP:LAME edit-wars. I'm sure if I had informed of their warring to the mentioned admins, they both would've had at least one-week vacation together. So if Grayoshi2x, Ronz, and Badagnani or others who may conflict with him over content disputes are not equally judged by the same ground, I won't support the 1RR patrol only applying to Badagnani. Either enforce 1RR to the three or WP:ARBCOM.--Caspianblue 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be comfortable with a group 1RR. I think it's stupid how long we've let this situation fester. If it makes people less unhappy to do it via ArbCom, then do it via ArbCom. I wouldn't use the word "judge" for any of it, but whatever. We don't need to talk philosophy.-GTBacchus 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm interested though... if Ronz and Grayoshi2x dropped off the planet, how many other editors have been driven to frustration and anger by Badagnani's... style? Conversely, if Badagnani magically weren't here, how many other editors have Ronz and Grayoshi2x been having issues with? Do they "stalk" a lot of people, thus justifying the label used above by ChildofMidnight, or are they just reacting badly to a particularly difficult editor who refuses to listen to anyone?

      This knowledge would inform any decision about which preventative measures would be most effective. I don't know the answers to those questions, but if we're trying to solve whatever problem we're talking about, these questions seem to matter, perhaps. Again, I don't oppose 1RR all around. Hell, I think it oughtta be site policy for everyone. Second reverts are silly; how many times do you try a locked door to decide if it's locked? Once is enough. -GTBacchus 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

      • User:Ronz seems to have been reported to WQA quite many times for his incivility and harassment of editors (5 WQA files) beside Badagnani's matter. As for User:GraYoshi2x, he has not been that much active, but his contribution for the past 9 months are largely edit-warring with Badagnani. One of which even chased down Badagnani to Commons by using WP:SOCK ips. That definitely an "immediately blockable offense" (perhaps, up to an indefinite block). However, Badagnani was also poor at defending himself against such unacceptable behaviors. Therefore, it is unfair to say that Badagnani is the only guilty party. Given this circumstance, if Badagnani is the one getting the IRR sanction, sadly, he would've been likely baited and blocked. Then, he will leave Misplaced Pages for good which is not beneficial to Misplaced Pages in a long-term perspective. If any sanction must take place, I can support the idea of the group 1RR, mutual interaction ban. Or strong mentorship program in which his mentors can guide or block him if he refuses to abide by policies could be an option. However, my idea would sound unpleasant to the mentioned people, so that's why I suggestWP:ARBCOM to equally judge the involved party's conducts.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely and totally irrelevant. When's the last time I've been reported to WQA? (Hint: Long ago) What was the outcomes of all the WQAs I've been involved? (Hint: I was being harassed by others).--Ronz (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you admit that my assessment on your conduct is "true" unlike your "baseless accusation" left on my talk page to harass me. I'm only mentioning the fact just because Badagnani should not be solely blamed for the whole issue. In fact, Badagnani's problem became on the big highlight in a row ever since you and GraYoshi2x began conflicting with him. I don't know why you're so upset about the neutral statement on who did what since you've quoted Badagnani's RFC/U so many times in reference with his behavior. I had tried to meditate (rather defended you) and advised you, while you were not willing to compromise different points of view such as violating WP:3RR and even bullying me so you were warned by admin.Considering that Badagnani has been one of "top content builders", I can put up with Badagnani's obnoxious behavior than yours. I am very skeptical of the 1RR sanction only imposed to Badagnani.--Caspian blue 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Then you admit that my assessment on your conduct" Quite the contrary. Your assessment of others' conduct appears biased and disruptive, being based upon your personal grudges and an inability to assume good faith.

I stand by my comments on Nihonjoe's talk page. I stand by my claims that your accusations are irrelevant and baseless. --Ronz(talk) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, you did not learn any lesson yet from the warning. My assessment on your conducts including harassment and personal attacks are very much relevant indeed to the issue. Your "grudge-driven motive" makes you hound Badagnani even though the article in recently named had originally nothing to do with you.--Caspian blue 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, I can't agree that questions about your conduct are completely irrelevant. If you're acting in a way that provokes Badagnani more than necessary, then you're a direct cause of any resulting disruption. I'm not saying this is true; there's an "if" there. However, if this were to go to ArbCom, they would definitely examine your behavior and Grayoshi2x's as well as Badagnani's.

@Caspian: people don't tend to "learn lessons" from warnings, especially if those warnings come from someone they don't accept as an authority. Thus, your warnings to Ronz are no more effective than Ronz's warnings to Badagnani. Unless you think there's a realistic chance that Ronz will read your words and say, "gee, I guess you're right; I'll change", then there's no good reason to post those words.

Warnings among established users are worth extremely little, and their use tends to generate entirely more heat than light. I fail to see a good case for heat-generation, which I why I leave Badagnani the heck alone now.-GTBacchus 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The evidence which Bdb484 provides is troubling. Caspian blue makes some good but not as convincing points too though. I agree with Caspain blue, please escalate this to arbcom. I am extremely leary of ANI imposed sanctions. Therefore I strongly oppose sanctioning the editor here.Ikip 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions. I see things like this where Bdb484 seems determined to delete things without reason, not understanding the subject, and Badagnani makes a good case for keeping that information in there. I see he has on many occasions reverted what he considers to be mindless deletion of information by people who know nothing of the subject. And in some cases, like the example I mentioned, he is right to do this. Other times, more discussion on the talk page, and seeking additional input from people, to form a consensus on what should be in the article and what should not, would be preferred. Dream Focus 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get too bogged down in the details, but in this instance, I made the change, and after Badagnani, I took the issue to thetalk page. By my understanding, that's how WP:BRD is supposed to work.

But before you click on that link, feel free to guess whether Badagnani has bothered to participate in that discussion. — Bdb484(talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

Why not just initiate an interaction ban? I don't understand why this feuding has been allowed to spread to new articles. If there is a general issue, like these concerns over including names or translations, they can be discussed on the project page until consensus is reached. But the individual editors who don't get along should just work on separate projects. There's no reason for anyone to pursue Badagnani to incite conflict and those doing so should be blocked post haste. The conflict is damaging and the attacks on an extraordinary content contributor are disturbing. Let's resolve whatever the underlying content conflicts are and seperate the disputants once and for all. Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble. Changes should be done with consensus and using ANI to win conflict disputes and to go after people with different opinions is wholly unconstructive and an odious practice. If anyone is out of patience then go work on something else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also a fine suggestion, although I think it postpones the inevitable. I wouldn't oppose it; it's another road. Let's go there, and then see. Sure. Good idea. -GTBacchus 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since CoM seems not to be responding to the RfC on his conduct on Project pages, now might be the right time to point out that here yet again he is making intemperate comments on disputes in which he is not involved. He has been criticized for this in the RfC and most recently by members of the new ArbCom.

Ikip and Caspian blue should remember that community sanctions are normally enacted here and are usually considered a step in WP:DR that precedes escalation to RfAr. Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"intemperate" i.e. unrestrained comments? COM made a suggestion which GTBacchus agrees to, which I think is a good idea. I appreciate his assitance in this matter.

COM's non-response to his RFC is irrelevant to the issue here.

Community sanctions are sometimes inacted without escalation to arbcom. That is what I would like to avoid.

Although I support WP:Equality the reality is there is preferential treatment given to veteran editors. Few editors are more veteran than Badagnani. Badagnani has been here 4 years. With 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. #28 athttp://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest Ikip 16:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Both CoM and Badagnani are members of WP:FOOD and have worked together for some articles. In fact, Mathsci, your business here seems to be only related to your relationship with CoM. I don't support community sanction since people calling out "burn the witch" are either largely filled with "angry people" or "angry people's friends", or ANI regulars who do not know well about the past history. The latter tend to pile on a majority's view by adding "per whose comment" without checking the whole issue. Though, I can support "group 1RR" or "mutual interaction ban" that would be fair for everyone.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My post above was a low key friendly reminder to CoM. A response from CoM would have been good: your own comments don't seem either helpful or accurate. Many other users, including admins, have participated in his RfC; some new arbitrators have commented on ArbCom pages. It has been pointed out recently that if CoM ignores other users' comments in the RfC, he could find himself the subject of an ArbCom case. It would be best to avoid that possibility, but that depends on CoM, not on other editors. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "low key friendly reminder" for CoM would've been much accomplished at CoM's talk page (not sarcasm), but here is not a good place to persuade him. Since the issue is about Badagnani, if CoM wants to defend his "friend", that is CoM's right. CoM's proposal is good, but I don't know how effectively it would work in the circumstance. --Caspian blue 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Badagnani has been behaving exactly as this ANI report describes (baseless accusations, insistence on doing things his way while refusing to discuss his objections or provide any kind of supporting information, ignoring all attempts to try to find a compromise) for years, and been brought to ANI over and over for it, as Bdb484's list of links indicates. And he almost always escapes punishment here, despite refusing to even acknowledge the situation or speak to his own defense at all, because he has some friends who always stick up for him and other people who will agree that when he's not in a dispute, he makes a lot of good contributions. Which doesn't excuse his absolutely horrendous behavior when he does get into a dispute.

He's going to keep doing the same stuff, over and over, because he very rarely suffers consequences (and apparently even the 30-day block didn't help). Yes, there are some specific people he has run-ins with over and over again, because those are people who work on the same topic areas and will try to improve his articles and who have the knowledge and motivation to bring the issue to another venue when he refuses to allow changes he doesn't like. The situation is not that those are the only people he has conflicts with and if he doesn't talk to them, he'll get along just peachy. (Has Bdb484 been accused of chasing Badagnani down and provoking him into a dispute?) The other unproductive "solution" that I've seen bandied about is that ever y single person who ever disagrees with Badagnani should have learn some special set of rules for communicating with him in a way that might possibly potentially convince him to discuss an issue productively, and it's that person's fault if they just try to speak to him like a rational human being and he won't respond like one. That's obviously ridiculous. As always, my opinion on Badagnani is he should be sitebanned until he shows a real willingness to acknowledge his poor behavior and improve it. (Of course, he hasn't acknowledged this ANI. If he avoids ANI discussions because he thinks they're unfair, as some of his friends have suggested, I don't see how that's an excuse; if I get an unfair parking ticket, I don't get it thrown out by simply failing to acknowledge it.) Propaniac (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

About a year ago I completly gave up watch listing my 100 plus articles I have written, and the hundreds of articles I have contributed too. Why? Because I found that I was spending more time policing my contributions than writing new contributions.

Badagnani has 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. I would guess that he has those 1,344 articles watchlisted, despite WP:OWN editors tend to police their articles they spent hours and hours and hours on, and get frustrated when editors come along and delete large portions of well refenced text.

Not being involved until yesterday, I can't vouch for this statment: "Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble."

But I can say that in my interaction with Ronz in the past, Ronz tends to WP:Bully. I can probably guess how the Goblet drum interaction between Ronz and Badagnani went, but don't want to make any assumptions.

Many of the editors who are calling for Badagnani's block above have the same characteristics. Instead of writing articles and contributing content, most of their time on wikipedia is spent deleting other editors good faith contributions.

Ikip 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goblet drum:

Ronz first edit to the Goblet drum is to re-delete what User:Bdb484 had deleted. 17:20, 30 Nov 2009.

Ronz has never added a single source to the article. Ronz only edits were deleting other editors contributions and tagging the article.

The first time that Ronz discusses his deletions/tagging on the talk page is 00:13, 5 Jan 2010.

56 edits to User talk:Badagnani.

I guessed it right, same modus operandi as I have seen repeatedly before:

# delete

# edit war

# spilling over to talk page arguments.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ronz 2? Ikip 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you do that, don't go directly to 2. The first "RfC" on Ronz was never certified, and was abandoned in draft form early last year. I've therefore deleted it. -GTBacchus 21:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord knows I would never start it. But thanks for deleting the first one.

I think a mutual ban from each other would be good. Never having worked with Badagnani before, but based on the list above, Badagnani's editing habits are probably like Ronz.

Badagnani appears like he gets in enough (stupid) edit wars. I am at a complete loss at how an editor can have been here so long, with so many edits, and not know all the ins and outs of 3RR. Ikip 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems that I've held myself to 1rr there. Quite the edit war! --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Honestly, if we are talking about Goblet drum would Badagnani, Bdb484 agree to 1RR, of course there are ways around this (off-wiki meatpuppetry) but it is a start.

Unfortunatly after my comments about Ronz, I think it is better if GTBacchus make comprimising suggestions, as I will probably be seen as too (justifiably) biased at this point against Ronz.

If an interaction ban were to be seriously proposedthis is a good template to work off of, (the only one I am aware of) which offers very little wiggle room. Ikip 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz just messaged me on my talk page that he would be happy with a 1rr.

I must say, Ronz, I am very impressed by your mannerism. It is like talking to a completly different editor than early last year, late 2008. Nice job (sincerely). Maybe I was completly wrong, and I will strike many of my assumptions, and will refactor them out with only a link remaining if anyone asks. My apologies. Ikip 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If Ronz (and possibly Grayoshi2x?) hold themselves to 1RR in interactions with Badagnani, it could help us determine the source of the problems. If it's true that Ronz's and Grayoshi2x's treatment of Badagnani is what sets him off, then their disengaging should lead to peace. If they back off, and Badagnani gets into the same problems with other editors, then I think we can say that Ronz and Grayoshi2x weren't the problem. Make sense? -GTBacchus 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ikip!

Yes, I'm happy to stick to 1RR with him if editors feel that would help the situation. I had also agreed with GTBacchus that I'd be more cautious with using his talk page, not repeating myself there. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, on wikipedia, in a sea of forced civility it is hard to make sure if an editor is sincere or simply going through the required motions forced upon all of us. I appreciate you taking my comments at face value, because they were sincere. I am sure you have become a much more effective editor now. Some of us learn faster than others (it took me much much longer). Maybe Badagnani can learn something from you about how to conduct himself on wikipedia more effectively

GTBacchus, I am so uninvolved in this dispute, I don't know who Grayoshi2x is. I do know that the Ronz's reversion of Badagnani was to User:Bdb484 edit, who seemed to be also edit warring with User:Bdb484. User:Bdb484 also initiated this ANI.

If there was a 1RR requirement excluding User:Bdb484, and User:Bdb484 and Badagnani got in a protracted edit war, what would this show?

A Bdb484/Badagnani edit war would show that Badagnani was edit warring, of course. But what else?

Has Caspian been involved in these edit wars too? Ikip 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone edit-wars, ever. It's clearly the wrong way to do things, and there are so many smarter strategies. The thing is, it takes two to edit war. If Badagnani is on 1RR, then Bdb484 can't really edit-war with him, because you can't tango with a tree. I'd support putting everyone in this thread, myself included, on permanent 1RR. -GTBacchus23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would be fine with me (and I'd rather just stop interaction with him altogether for a while). It's not like our edit warring is solving anything, so a 1RR/wikibreak will help relieve tensions. GraYoshi2x► 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

It sounds like the main objections to imposing WP:1RR are that (a) the whole thing should be bumped up to ArbCom for a more definitve solution; and (b) Badagnani will simply be baited into a block by Ronz or Grayoshi.

To be honest, I'm just don't know, procedurally speaking, whether this is appropriate for ArbCom, but perhaps I could propose a compromise that would allow us to solve this without further escalation. If Badagnani has chronic communication problems, regardless of which editors he's interacting with; and concerns have been raised about Ronz and Grayoshi interactions with Badagnani alone, perhaps we could impose 1RR on Badagnani, project-wide and impose 1RR on Ronz and Grayoshi, as well, but only with respect to edits made by Badagnani.

Given the pattern of these editors' interactions, such a rule might give R & G a leg up, but given Badagnani's history, that may be acceptable. If Badagnani reverts, then Ronz reverts, they're both at a dead-end. The pre-revert version of the article will be maintained until consensus can be reached at the talk page.

This seems to me like it might address all the problem areas. Anyone else? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to find ways to work with him, and interject when he's in conflict with others. Mostly, he doesn't respond, which is an improvement for him. For example, in All in This Tea, when I removed some linkspam he reverted with the edit summary "+". I reverted , and left him a comment on his talk page about it . He didn't continue the dispute, nor did he remove my comment on his talk page. While the edit summary is strange, this demonstrates that editors can work with Badagnani in a way where his behavior is acceptable.

As far as I can tell, Bdb484 first interacted with Badagnani in an almost identical situation at Oud. Sadly, it resulted in an edit-war, and likely led us to this ANI. 1RR would definitely had helped in Oud, and might have prevented this ANI discussion entirely. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that in the case of Oud, I noticed the edit-warring but kept out of it, other than to comment at the end of the talk page discussion. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RECAP

1. The chances of a 1RR for Badagnani being imposed here at ANI are slim. But everyone wants to avoid arbcom.
2. GTBacchus and Childofmidnight come up with a possible solution.
3. The agreed upon proposal thus far was GraYoshi2x, Ronz had 1RR. Badagnani has yet to agree or disagree.
4. I brought up a concern that there seems to be a pattern of edit warring with Bdb484 and Badagnani too. I also ask Caspian blue if he has edit warred two. I have not yet received a response.

^^^^^

1. Bdb484 then proposes further restrictions on Badagnani.
2. Ronz then follows up with more edit diffs about Badagnani possible bad behavior.

Bdb484 offer, Badagnani's stark choices. Ronz comments.

Bdb484, I cannot speak for Badagnani, but if it was me personally, I would reject Bdb484's new proposal. This is because Badagnani was given a better offer before. GraYoshi2x, Ronz, Badagnani equally have 1RR. That better offer is still open. Bdb484 is now offering something more restrictive now. Compromise usually doesn't involve a good offer, followed by a worse one. "Badagnani will simply be baited into a block by Ronz or Grayoshi." Let me give an example to illustrate my concern. Lets take the article Goblet drum lets say that Ronz and/or Grayoshi get in an edit war with Badagnani. Each editor does there 1RR for the day. Ronz and/or Grayoshi then e-mail you Bdb484 and ask you to revert Badagnani. With your 3RR available Bdb484, this puts Badagnani at a definite disadvantage. The first comprimise is already bad for Badagnai. He already has three editors who have edit warred with him, and who may work together to edit war together with him again. Badagnai has three stark choices: A 1rr in some form. The editors have a combined 2rr or 3rr, which means his edits will be deleted. This does not even take into account meatpupptry or sockpuppets. This means many of his edits will be deleted, and he has no recourse (except for his own meatpuppery or sockpuppets) Arbcom, in which his edit history is pretty bad. If what you say is true, his communication skills are bad, so he will not be able to compile an adequate defense without help. Ignore this and hope it goes away and editors will loose interest. Ronz's most recent comments: I agree with Ronz and Bdb484 that there has been bad behavior by Badagnai, based on Bdb484's above edit differences. The majority of the editors here agree. So Ronz, bringing up more examples of bad behavior does not help at this point, it only hurts the chance of comprimise. Per rewrite of Ronz. Sorry again Ronz.

Compromise is giving up something to get something in return. If the answers to the questions are yes, what are Caspian blue and Bdb484 willing to giving up to stop the disruption and to see Ronz, Grayoshi, Badagnani have 1RR? Ikip 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, would you remove this weird table format singling me out of the bunch? Your assessment and questions are also troubling me as well because the assessment is incorrect. Caspian blue and Bdb484 willing to giving up to stop the disruption What disruption? I'm neither one who edit wars with Badagnani nor has an issue with him. You forgot the fact that I'm the one suggesting the group 1RR to everyone who deal with Badagnani. I of course haven't edit with Badagnani for more then 9 months unlike Ronz and GraYoshi2x because I've always provided "reliable sources" and used discussions with him to persuade him (and it worked well). Don't forget that I opened the two discussions to form a consensus about the Wiktionary matter. So I've already practiced 1RR when it comes to Badagnani (haven't feel to revert so). If the ArbCom is open, well, there should have more people other than here. Badagnani, Ronz, GraYoshi are the main party for the ongoing 9 months dispute and the other include me, CoM, Viriditas, GTBacchus, Jerem43, Tanner-Christoper, Melonbarmonter2, Sennen goroshi, and many others in dispute with him on XfDs. If you remove the (interrogating) table, I will tell the reason. --Caspian blue 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of that analysis above bothers me because we seem to be assuming that reversion is helpful. If I'm in a dispute, and the other guy reverts and I can't revert back, that puts me at no disadvantage at all. I always hold myself to 1RR, and that's never been a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage if you don't know about the multitude of strategies that are so much smarter and more effective than reverting.-GTBacchus 02:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL GTBacchus, so true. I keep seeing so many of the problems here on ANI, and I keep thinking, that guy just doesn't get it yet. Ronz seems to "get it". Badagnani does not yet.

There are the rules and then their is the way wikipedia works, and they are often not the same thing. I had a really hard road learning this. Many editors who are smarter and better with people learned much faster. I am still learning, usually the hard way :/. Ikip 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz wrote the following on my talk page:

Ronz, I will strike anything you like. I apologize, I felt a little flustered because it seemed like we were so close to an agreement, and it got side tracked, and we moved backwards. My apologies if I offended you. It was my (flawed) perception of the status of the compromise.

I sense that what Ronz said is true (slightly edited):

"If you look at Badagnani's past behavior, you'll see that he's unlikely to participate in the ANI, nor an ArbCom for that matter. If by some extremely slim chance he does participate, it's safe to assume that he'll respond as he always does, with grandiose language that doesn't address the issues at hand...This is not a judgment of Badagnani, but simply a statement made from the perspective of someone that's worked very hard to understand his behavior and find ways to successfully interact with him."

Have you all been to mediation? Should I ask Badagnani if he will agree? Ikip 02:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that Badagnani has never responded here. I think Ronz is right in that he is "he's unlikely to participate in the ANI" frankly, all options from here on out feel too tedious to pursue and I have grown bored of this. Best wishes all. Ikip 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history, it looks like there have been some comments put up and then taken down requesting some information from me regarding any past history with Badagnani, etc. If those are still outstanding, I'll be happy to address them. I'm honestly not sure where everything stands now. To be clear, though, my preferred outcome does not involve formal sanctions against anyone but Badagnani. I'm not familiar with Grayoshi beyond what's been said here. In the case of Ronz, I've seen a rash of persistent, unconstructive posts on Badagnani's talk page trying to get him to talk. I don't think that requires 1RR; I only suggest that imposition because he's offered to accept it and it seemed like it might keep the ball rolling.

With respect to the new proposal, though, I just wanted to say that I was throwing it out there because it seemed like a possible compromise among the parties involved in the discussion. It may have been worse for Badagnani, but I hadn't really considered whether he would reject it, as he has gone radio silent since the ANI case was opened. It's my hope that he'll join in at some point, but his edit history reflects that the likelihood of his participation in any discussion is inversely proportional to the number of level-headed people involved. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe 1RR all around, and interaction discouragement between the 3 parties, is the way to go.

There are enough people currently watching Badagnani's userpage (150!) that I would suggest Ronz unwatchlist it, to prevent the urge to 'jump in' during random future discussions.

Badagnani is unlikely to join the thread here - he's a classic exopedian. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that number? (I think that's an excellent suggestion, by the way. Un-watching people's user pages is like getting paid to win the lottery - so good.) -GTBacchus 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(eg) At the top of every 'history' page, are (currently) 4 links to various "External tools". The third one, "Number of watchers" , will show how many people have that page&talkpage watchlisted. If the number is under 30, only admins can view the exact number (a "–" gets displayed to everyone else). I think it was added in Oct/Nov, but hasn't never widely advertised.

Bear in mind that "watchlisted" != "actively watching" in any way, a thread about which is currently at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Ignore watchlisting by inactive users (might be about to be archived). -- Quiddity (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Quiddity's proposal is the only one which will prevent this from going to Arbcom. btw, I don't thinkthis edit by Badagnani has been mentioned edit; he uses a very misleading edit summary "rm commentary" for what is essentially a revert of this edit by Bdb484. John Vandenberg 12:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice spot; that one got past me. Tricksy little hobbitses..... — Bdb484 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on this is block and forget about it. Badagnani is not above flat out lying about other users and basically making up strange claims in the middle of a discussion to disrupt it. An interaction ban is pointless because it doesn't matter who he interacts with. Anyone who disagrees with him gets treated the same. So I suppose I do support an interaction ban, a ban on his interaction with this community. You can see in link 12 (under AN/i) above the flat-out lies he spurts and bold face bad faith accusations he makes over and over and over. The guy has been brought up 15 times at An3...15 times.. I don't really care how "good" his contributions are. This is a community and if he can't work with it, he can't be part of it. An interaction ban with 3 users is pointless when numerous people have brought him here to complain about him. It shows the problem extends far beyond three users and anyone ignoring that needs to go back and re-read those links and see all the various users that have complained about him or certified there are issues. He completely refused to participate in the RfC about himself which shows further unwillingness to work with the community. If someone is trying this hard to avoid working with the community we don't need to try that hard to force him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm not sure why you're holding your feeling on the one-time conflict with Badagnani for that long, which happened more than a year ago. You could've let it go long ago. You appeared to be able to "let the past go" and amicably work with your opponents (you know what I mean). As you see the latest ANI or AN3 files are all related to Ronz, GraYoshi2x or a couple of AfD things. I'm gonna leave a message to your talk page later.--Caspian blue 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have let it go. That doesn't mean I can't talk about it in relevant conversation. It might be those 3 users now, but it will always be "some user" over the years it has always been different users. Badagnani has always been the same and not changed. So interaction bans are pointless. If we just wait it won't be those 3 users anymore and it will be different users. That is the problem. The only interaction ban that is any good is a ban on his interaction with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

I've read through this whole discussion, but it seems to me that ArbCom needs to get involved here. Is there any reason why we can't get them involved? This seems to me to be the most suitable course of action. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this essay, User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem, is the best insight into this problem.

Specifically, from my own tinted perspective (and oversimplified for brevity of communication), we have 2 extremes of editor-archetype butting heads. Badagnani is an exopedian eventualist, who enjoys creating stub/start quality articles. I would guess that he is an older gentleman. The people he tends to clash with, are our janitors, often those of an immediatist and exclusionist persuasion. (one of whom has lots of experience policing the Spam and EL noticeboards.) I would guess that they are a fair bit younger than Badagnani (20s-30s?).

Badagnani just wants to add information to the encyclopedia, but sometimes doesn't pay close enough attention to the details of our WP:RS guidelines, or, because he deals in esoteric subjects, he often finds the fine-line of "do we include this?" that consensus gets tricky at (eg List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, or the example that started this thread at goblet drum). His opposition just wants to clear up what they see as listcruft, or delete imperfect content.

Both archetypes, somehow, need to be made welcome here, and not step on each others toes (especially not on purpose!).

If we can get Badagnani to agree to 1RR (I can try later), I think that would be preferable. I don't think he would do well with the legalese of arbcom. I'm running out the door, but I'll try to add more in a couple of hours. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can get him to agree not to do any more reverting, that would definitely be better than taking to ArbCom and having something enforced, I agree. But if the behaviour continues, then I do think that ArbCom need to get involved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. The discussion above shows that we don't have a great idea for fixing this issue. Guy(Help!) 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the arbcom would pummel him more than the petitions at this ANI YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, so be it! ArbCom are usually quite fair in their decision making processes. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this going to arbcom. We don't give infinite chances, and we don't bend over backwards for someone. We're here to form a community, not massage badagnani so he graces us with his contributions. No community can function doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support indefinitely blocking him until he grows up. He's been told to knock it off, he was unblocked under a promise to stop it, and he continues to do so. This isn't brain surgery, he knows what he's supposed to do. Enabling him just lets him avoid it (and I've had my own dealings with him). Punting it to ARBCOM doesn't solve anything and he's just going to continue because people seem to find certain editors irreplaceable (which time and time again proves to be wrong). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? ArbCom are perfectly placed to make a reasonable decision on this one. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, is anyone volunteering to put the case together? -GTBacchus 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to put it together as the workday permits, provided there isn't a huge rush. Given the that this spans such a long time, how far back should I go in naming "involved" parties? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anyone has any comments on anything I need to remember, the draft is here. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although I'm the one who've first suggested taking the matter to WP:ARBCOM or group WP:1RR in the report. That was because one-side 1RR sanction would be extremely unfair in the circumstance. We've reached a consensus beside Badagnani that the involved party keep following the group 1RR. Therefore at least we have to have a little more patience until Badagnani appears here whether he also agree or not. I will urge him to do so. If he agrees to abide "1RR" and "be civil", I don't think ArbCom is necessary "at this moment". Moreover, if my memory is correct, Ricky81682 you had a couple of sour interaction with Badagnani. I highly doubt indefinitely blocking him would work for him to "get it". Bdb484, I appreciate your effort to resolve the issue, but your compiled files includes complaints from "sockpuppeters" and "indefinitely blocked user" as well as mere content disputes. The latest AN/I and AN/3 were all related to Ronz, GraYoshi2x, and Badagnani's clashing with some admin for XfD. You appear to be not knowledgeable of the history, so if the issue must be filed to ArbCom, there would be better people out there.

Here is a list of roughly "involved party" for the possible ArbCom though.

Badagnani, Ronz, GraYoshi2x = main party for the 9 month long edit warring

Me, Melonbarmonster2, Jerem43, Tanner-Chistopher, Sennen goroshi mainly for Korean cuisine

GTBacchus, ChildofMidnight, Viritidas, Quiddity - criticized on Ronz, GraYoshi2x's hounding of Badagnani.

YellowMonkey, Amore Mio - Vietnamese topics

Gordonofcartoon, William Allen Simpson, Bulldog123, Hmains, Crossmir, for list articles or incivility

Ohconfucius, Cordless Larry, Jza84, Propaniac, and many others.

However, I want to first see how effectively the proposed group 1RR would work. If this turns out to be a waste of time, then we can go to ArbCom.--Caspian blue 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom or 1RR -- either route is fine with me; my only concern is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that Badagnani will ever appear to defend himself here. For a while now, (roughly coinciding with the last RFC/U, maybe) he has simply refused to participate in any discussions about his communication problems. He's written on his talk page since being notified of this discussion, but he hasn't participated, despite several subsequent entreaties.

But it sounds to me like we have rough consensus to move on to ArbCom, especially given his refusal to engage and his apparent inability to recognize why anyone would ever have a problem with his editing patterns. If someone else wants to take up the ArbCom case, they can use the link above as a starting point. I'm definitely not looking to WP:OWN this dispute. If not, I'll handle it, because I definitely don't have any more patience for Badagnani's antics. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we have a rough consensus for ArbCom; instead, we have the group 1RR. The two set of the opinion both do not include Badagnani. If you closely looked into the listed past cases, he appeared in some of cases to explain/defend his conducts. To me, he has frustrated over the fact that nothing has been done to ban the ongoing harassment and hounding of him. Of course, that is also his responsibility, but he is not the solely responsible for the "9 months long edit warring" and incivility. I left a message to him "this will be the last chance for him before WP:ArbCom. So I think we can wait at least one or two days.--Caspian blue 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have a consensus for arbcom. Anyone can file an arbcom case at any time for any reason. Arbcom decides if they take the case. Even if we had a consensus for arbcom they could still reject it. It looks like several people would support sending it to Arbcom. Badagnani is completely responsible for his behaviour and he won't even come here to explain it, which seems to be a habit of his. He's responsible for the behaviour that has been going on for years and yet continues it. 1RR won't solve that at all. I'm gone for a couple days, so just in case I wasn't clear, I'd support an indef block until he demonstrates he can work with the community or an arbcom case.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR would be a reasonable option, the only problem being that Badagnani would have to agree to it, and preferably shortly. If that doesn't happen within this thread I'd support going to ArbCom. Enough dispute resolution has occurred, including an RFC/U and this thread, to warrant it. ArbCom can intervene without his participation so it would be a good solution to the matter if he chooses to ignore this thread. ThemFromSpace 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He's back

Badagnani has returned to editing. Because of the accusations against me, and the assertions that he only behaves inappropriately when interacting with certain individuals, I'm asking for someone else to look over his edits and at the first two edits since returning ( & ), where I've chosen to respond (at Kora , and at Talk:Glong yao --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at his edits, which of course include several reversions of other editors' work. From a cursory review:

• The Kora (instrument) link is obviously not appropriate as an "official" link, and probably not as an EL at all;
• Edits to Zhengzhou are legit, though the edit summaries could be toned down;
• At dog meat, it seems like the reversion is legit -- if a little sloppy -- as most of the material appears to be sourced;
• At Yaqui, it looks more like the classic pattern, where he simply objects to the way another user has chosen to edit the material;
• At Agave nectar, it definitely fits the abusive-revert pattern. There is a content dispute, based on assertions that are flimsily cited, hereverts, demands a talk page discussion and never shows up for it.

To be honest, some of these edits smell like bait to me. I'm not going to be the one to step in (and you probably shouldn't, either), but I'm hopeful that someone whom he listens to will take a look. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would just file the ArbCom case. This editor is obviously disruptive, this is really where ArbCom comes in. - Tbsdy lives(formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Last call

Several editors seemed to prefer delaying an ArbCom case in the event Badagnani was willing to show up and work toward a less severe sanction. This ANI case is now almost a week old, and although he's acknowledged it, he has not bothered to offer any input. I can't imagine that anyone still thinks this is going to be productive.

Since we can't seem to reach consensus on any course of action here, I'm hopeful that I'll have the support of all the editors here when I file at ArbCom tomorrow. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're going ahead, instead of simply blocking him again for his continued disruptions and edit-warring that have gone on for years. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why ArbCom?

I wouldn't be surprised if ArbCom punts it right back here, if they see what I see. Maybe I'm missing a whole lot of context, but from my read of this, it seems to me the community should be able to come to a consensus here. This involves one person, and it seems there are two possible outcomes: 1RR or community determined indef, IOW ban. It shouldn't be difficult for everyone to make a choice. Auntie E. (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Until he chooses to address his problems, further blocks with extended lengths are warranted at a minimum. If he's open to any other option, he needs to communicate it. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point he's given no evidence that he's going to be change his behaviour, so I can't see any good reason not to go to an indef. He's been blocked before, he's refused to engage in discussions about his behaviour, this AN/I thread and the RFC as evidence of that, and a block is supposed to prevent disruption. So if he's not going to acknowledge or discuss his problem and isn't going to change after all this time, the only solution is an indef block with the onus on him to demonstrate he can work with the community. We are not here to coddle him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All editors are expected to discuss what they do. I believe that a long block of Badagnani is justified, that would be lifted if he would join in discussions. His last block was for one month, and it was issued due to non-communication. Since he chose not to address that problem, and since there still are major issues with his editing, I think we should proceed with a block for two months. Sad to say, this would be normal block escalation for an editor who refuses to cooperate with others. At that point, the future is up to him. If non-cooperation is truly that important to him, he can remain silent. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

The above user has requested unblocking at User talk:Bowei Huang#Blocked promising to use on the Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) account. The problem is not that the user has two accounts (or three User talk:Bowei Huang#User:Brickfield Brickfield (talk · contribs)) but that the editing history is at A1DF67 (talk · contribs). Of the two accounts only the Bowei Huang is blocked meaning they can still edit with A1DF67. I have no objections to the Bowei Huang account being unblocked but only if a clear connection is made between the two or, if possible, the editing history is restored. I thought that it would be a good idea to bring this here for further review and will inform Bowei Huang that they can comment here as A1DF67. If it's felt to be OK to unblock Bowei Huang then go ahead and don't wait for me to notice as I will be in and out during the day. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You should leave the Bowei account blocked and tell him to use the A1DF67 account; or else revert A1DF67 to Bowei and block A1DF67. It appears that he wanted the account renamed just to hide his past problems. He doesn't need two accounts. Given his contentiousness, one is more than enough. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the most recent information at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67, it appears that Bowei Huang's intent was always to hide his edit history. His unblock request is disingenuous at best. He didn't change his mind, he never intended using A1DF67. He just wanted to use it to dump his edit and warning history. When his name was change went through he used the new name only to post a thankyou for the name change and then immediately went straight back to editing as Bowei Huang. I don't think that his deception should be rewarded by allowing him to edit as Bowei Huang, which is what he always wanted to do. And now we have another editor, who is obviously well aware of what's going on, suggesting he has another, undeclared identity. That needs to be cleaned up before any consideration is given to an unblock. --AussieLegend (talk)

We give people the ability to start again as a productive editor after having a shady past, see WP:CLEANSTART, but it explicitly states (in bold text, bold!) that "no active deception is involved". If there is active deception this shouldn't be allowed. -- Atama頭 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Block all the accounts for disruption with only one talkpage free for an unblock request and let's move on. The editor can either use one account or he gets none. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, Good faith has been given to the editor but they have only given us bad faith in return. Changing username's to hide there history is one and another is editing another users comments! Really User:A1DF67 shouldn't be editing (other then the talkpage) after what they have done, and I've seen user who have socked get both accounts (meat and sock accounts) blocked but it has no been so in this case. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto the user talk page of the account with the new username before the username change back into the account with the old username.

A1DF67 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would keep that account indefinitely blocked, this seems like they did want to hide their previous edits before. That's bad behaviour and not something we want to encourage. That this has backfired on him is really his own fault - the phrase that comes to mind is "hoist on his own petard". - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I note that example edits such as this one will still look like it comes from User:A1DF67 and not User:Bowei Huang. Unless another user rename occurs, I don't think that User:Bowei Huang should be unblocked, they should continue editing from User:A1DF67. Has anyone asked why they wanted their username changed? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Returns to edit AussieLegend's comment above...Not good. Auntie E. (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you actually meant above. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tbsdy lives - According to the name change request it was because he wanted a more obscure name, but immediately after the name change he re-registered Bowei Huang and used only that account.

• 23:09, 15 December 2009 GMT Name change requested
• 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz moves Bowei Huang to A1FD7
• 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz reports name change completed
• 23:58, 15 December 2009 GMT Bowei Huang re-registered

Note that all of this happened in a 49 minute period and, for some added insight, he had previously been asking about hiding edit histories the month prior to the change. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Aussie, my hunch is that he misunderstood Mysdaao in this discussion specifically "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)" regarding RTV, yet missing this: "The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity." I'm thinking he was trying to erase his old contibutions by RTV, use the old screenname, and then pretend he's never been here before. Wow. Auntie E. (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you often refer to me as they, rather than he?

Sorry. I am very sorry about editing comments. I promise I will never ever do it again.

Sorry. I am very sorry for this whole thing here and everything I did that was got to do with it. Will you let me edit from User:Bowei Huang again if I be completely honest and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I swear and promise that from now on, I will only tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine.

I didn't change username to escape from the messages posted onto my user talk page by others. As I have said before, I have already moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto my user talk page before the username change back there. This is also a sign of good faith.

Although I created User:Brickfield, my purpose and intention to change username from User:A1DF67 to User:Bowei Huang was not to sock puppet. After I changed my username, I didn't use User:A1DF67 and only used User:Bowei Huang so I wasn't using multiple accounts at the same time, or trying or intending to use multiple accounts at the same time, after I changed my username, by changing username. I wasn't trying or intending to use multiple accounts by changing username. I wasn't a sock puppet, being a sock puppet, or trying or intending to be a sock puppet by changing username. You yourselves said that, of the two accounts, I only used and tried and intended to use one account, User:Bowei Huang. So I didn't sock puppet and I didn't try or intend to sock puppet by changing username.

My intention to change username was indeed to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang. Although I did intend to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, I didn't intend to remove them from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I only really intended to remove them from my Special:Contributions. I only wanted to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, not from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I removed the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account not because I didn't want others to look at them but because I didn't want to look at them myself. I have no problem if User:A1DF67 is now redirected to User:Bowei Huang or if User talk:A1DF67 is now redirected to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have no problem letting others find and contact me through them.

I did indeed misunderstand "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)". I thought that it meant that I could get rid of an account by changing username and continuing editing in my account with the old username at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I thought that it meant that I could continue editing in my account with the old username after the username change at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I read about the right to vanish. I was asking two separate different questions then, not one single question. One was about changing usernames and the other was about getting rid of accounts. The right to vanish was about getting rid of accounts. I thought it meant that to get rid of an account, there were two possible ways. One was right to vanish and the other was requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers) and then not use the account with the new username at all.

I didn't think that it would be sock puppeting if I changed my username but did not and did not intend to use the account with the new username at all and only used the account with the old username.

Would you unblock the account with the old username if I do the following things or agree that and let the following things be done? Can you please tell me if there are more things that I need to do? If there are, then can you please tell me what are they?

1. Redirect or agree and let you redirect the page User:A1DF67 so that it goes to User:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it? Redirect the page User talk:A1DF67 so that it goes to User talk:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it?

2. If it were possible, move or agree and let you move all the records of edits in the Special:Contributions of User:A1DF67 before the username change back into the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang.

3. Put the Template:Retired on the page User:A1DF67 so that nobody, including me myself, could ever edit from it ever again.

A1DF67 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of the edit history of United States shows that you were editing that article in December 2009 as both Bowei Huang and Brickfield. Between December 10-12 there was very active sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering (1) Why isn't the Brickfield account blocked also? and (2) Is it technically possible to merge the A1D account back into the new stuff from Bowei, as if the A1D never existed? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because there's never an admin around when you need one? Auntie E. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the namechange, so he'd want the old Bowei and the new Bowei patched together? Is that correct? Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. I want to fix this whole thing that I've done. A1DF67 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. But I was NOT talking about User:Brickfield in that paragraph. I was just talking about User:Bowei Huang, User:A1DF67, and the change of username from User:Bowei Huang to User:A1DF67. I was saying that the username change wasn't sock puppeting or done because I tried or intended to sock puppet. I didn't sock puppet or try or intend to sock puppet by editing as both Bowei Huang and A1DF67.

A1DF67 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But you did sockpuppet anyway. That's a bit too important to gloss over. Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected User:Brickfield to User:Bowei Huang. I have also redirected User talk:Brickfield to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have also moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto User talk:Brickfield into User talk:Bowei Huang. This is also a sign of good faith.

A1DF67 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty disruptive. You should really have considered what you were asking for first. I say keep all accounts except A1DF67 blocked until someone can sort out this mess. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit too much fuss? I've blocked User:A1DF67 and User:Brickfield indefinitely, and unblocked User:Bowei Huang. I suggest we just leave it there for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Pooeybumbum

Pooeybumbum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been indefinitely blocked for using an inappropriate username. Now, I can understand blocking someone who calls themselves "User: Nigger Killer 5000", but how is "Pooeybumbum" "offensive"? There are users with far sillier, more immature usernames on Misplaced Pages. I mean, are you seriously telling me that "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" is any better than "Pooeybumbum"?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily offensive so much as "disruptive", in my opinion, which is another category of names which are generally disallowed. If the user does object to being blocked, though, it is possible that he could be allowed to use that username; otherwise he is free to create another name. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's stupid and immature, but there are several Wiki editors with far worse usernames...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Like what? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The policy is kinda vague, which has led to it creeping out like this. I don't have a strong opinion. It's not like my name is much better; it's a song by a silly hard rock band and happens to be about a monstrous serial killer. Blood Red Sandman 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Valid block of "stupid", "immature" username that is not conducive to the betterment of an encyclopedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Me too, though if Mr. Bumbum himself appeals the block I wouldnt have any problem with it going to WP:RFC/U. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - what Bwilkins said. Jauerback/_dude. 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this user is Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a few of those as usernames, we do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an issue that comes up sometimes at WP:UAA. I usually don't bother blocking them because I'm not easily offended and users with such names usually get blocked soon enough for their actual editing, but I seem to be in the minority in that department. So, it's not a block I would have made, but it's not out of step with current practice at UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW the username "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me" says "I'm a fan of Alice Cooper." "Pooeybumbum" says "I'm still anticipating potty training." Auntie E. (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) and why not Pooey Mcbumbum? That almost makes it acceptable.

Actually, that Alice Cooper song took its title from a Simpsons episode, and pluralised it (the username in question is "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" Oh, and I see no problem with the block. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Look. My name is just as bad if not worse. And im not indef blocked am I? I think that the real reason that this user was block was for the fact that they have no contribs, not their name.--Coldplay Expért 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are plenty of editors who chose a username they thought was "amusing" which perhaps, upon reflection, wasn't. Some editors even chose a "silly" username before they ever heard of WP, and have used variations of it all over the internet - just for some sort of continuity. Really, unless a username is offensive (and intended to be) it beholds us to ignore the tag and concentrate on the quality or otherwise of the edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there's that and the fact that haveing a user named Pooeybumbum that's not indef blocked is not good for public relations. And don't forget that admins (Im not makeing any accusations) can be a bit trigger happy at times when it comes to blocking.--Coldplay Expért 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged admin "trigger-happiness" aside, I'd be interested indeed to have someone go through the list of not-quite-4000 usernames starting with "Poo" (and that's only users with edits!) and find out what percentage of those users made valid, non-vandal edits, and the percentage of non-"Poo"-names with non-vandal edits. And to show I'm not looking for results that suit my supposed bias here, I included legitimate usernames like "Poohbear" and "Poodle". I'm not a betting woman, but if I were, I'd bet pretty heavily that if (hypothetically) 25% of all users have made non-vandal edits, the percent of "Poo"-names with non-vandal edits would be less than 10% of that total. GJC 08:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard is right - some editors, like me, simply chose an username they've been using on other things before. (Well, I had an account years before, but since the PRC govt imposed the ban on WP I was forced to retire. Years after they lifted the ban, my life stabilized a bit, I decided to return, but could't remember the username... So this time I simply chose the username of my WoW account) Maybe they do sound silly, but I think if they are not particularly offensive to others, then it should not be a ground for blocking. Blodance (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be in a crashing minority here, but (were I inclined toward creating Venn diagrams ) the set "names referencing fecal matter" and the set "names particularly offensive to others" would show significant overlap. And no, it's not the immaturity of the reference that flips that switch; "Gluteus Coprophagius" or something similar would provoke the same reaction. Or look at it from a marketing standpoint (and no, I don't mean Misplaced Pages marketing; I mean as a generic concept): I'd like to ask the user Really, is "Pooeybumbum" really the brand identity you're looking to establish? When people think of you, do you really want them to associate you with concepts like "skidmarks" and "poor hygiene"? In short: seriously, are you SURE you want to identify yourself with poop? GJC 08:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack problem

Both editors blocked

I would like to point out a problem with user cs32en. Currently he has started an edit war with me at the article Camp Chapman attack, and even violated the 3RR rule (three revert rule), I myself reverted him two times and stoped. After that I have come here in hopes of resolving this issue. The problem:

1.Every major news media is reporting only eight people (nine if you include the attacker) died in the terrorist attack, references for this can be found everywhere. User Cs32en is violating the WP:SYNTHESIS rule by inserting information that has showed up in only one article so to make it look like nine people (ten if you include the attacker) died. His source is here . His claim is that the Afghan security chief of the CIA base, Arghawan, was killed. At this point I would like to say that except for this one source no other source is reporthing Arghawan's death, and this source was only a few days after the attack when the situation was still chaotic and fluid.

2.With the addition of Arghawan to the list we got nine dead on the list of casualties, seven CIA, one Jordanian agent and the Afghan. Again, pointing out every major media news outlet is reporting only eight persons died. Also, I should state a source for the backgrounds of all of the seven CIA agents has been provided in the article . There is no mention of Arghawan in the article. And multiple reports on individual backgrounds of the operatives can be found everywhere, again no mention of Arghawan.

3.It should be pointed out that until a few days ago he started another war with me claiming that only six CIA operatives died and not seven. His edit was again based on only one source here . I told him that the source provided for the number 6 is also linked to an article as a source for the number 6, but that source states 7 not 6, their mistake. He wouldn't back down claiming constantly that six CIA operatives died, even though I provided him with sources that claimed to the contrary, sources like the president of the United States who said that seven Americans died and a spokesman for the CIA itself who said that a memorial for qoute seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty was held at Dover air base where their bodies were transfered from Afghanistan for burial in the United States. He just brushed aside those sources and still pushed his POV that only six died, at one point even proposing that the president of the United States and the CIA were making statements on unreliable information. Both the presidents and the CIAs speechwriters got it wrong? At this point I proposed a compromise. I took in the posibility of the Afghan maybe being an American of Afghan origin, since seven bodies were right there on the airport and Obama stated seven Americans died. For a few days he agreed to this since everyone was still reporting 7 and not 6 CIA officers died. But he only agreed to it if the wording was such that left the posibility of the Afghan being only a simple Afghan and not an American one. To please him my wording in my edit implied both, he was an American Afghan or he was just an Afghan.

4.However, yesterday he again erased from the article the posibility of the Afghan even being a CIA operative. And he started a new edit war until today he himself added a new source . A source that states the backgrounds of all the seven who died, and the source states that the seventh person killed was the Kabul CIA station deputy chief. This made me to belive that since Arghawan has not been mentioned in any other news article or media outlet after that one ABC report that Arghawan was in fact never killed. Thus I reworded the article. The report on the deputy chief was still not confirmed so I stated that possibly the deputy chief was killed. But now since we had nine dead and not eight on our list I erased Arghawan from the list, but still mentioned him in the article. This was my wording and source. Initial reports also stated that the security director of the base, an Afghan named Arghawan, was also killed in the attack. However, in the days after the attack no mention of Arghawan among the casualties had been made. He still reverted me, and reverted me three times: 1st time - in edits from to , 2nd time - and 3rd time - . By the way my apologise for deleting that whole section titled Initial reports before the second revert, my bad, my mistake, not my intention.

5.I confronted him once more about this, I told him multiple reliable sources are stating that only eight people died and not nine, I told him that only one source has stated Arghawan was killed but after that no other mention of him. His response to me was: I know that multiple sources exist. One source, however, is sufficient. I will not spend my time formatting refs for a particular piece of information just because you would want me to do so. The death of the deputy chief of the Kabul CIA station has not been confirmed, so there is no reason to change the overall death count. He said that even though he himself changed the death count with nine people listed in the table of casualties. I myself have googled and yahooed Arghawan on the net and only one article mentions him on the whole Internet. Where are those multiple sources?

6.I would like to point out that user Cs32en has been blocked once before for edit warring and while in conflict with me has been in conflict with two other users over different issues, users Deicas and Troed. This shows a pattern of edit warring. UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

7.An additional point 7, user Cs32en deleted my notification of his behavior on this noticebord as seen here , which I think constitutes vandalism, and made an accusation against me. I think that is called covering up the evidence.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to sum up, I have presented all of the evidence. User Cs32en violated the 3rr rule and is constantly inserting information based only on one source while deleting multiple other references that are contrary to that one. Also, he deleted another users notification on the noticebord so to make his own case without the other users voicing his opinion.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you post the four diffs you say violated 3RR? Also, Cs32en, you are obviously aware of this thread, can you respond?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He got blocked; for 31 hours. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from blocking admin. It does seem that more outside reviewers are needed. There is a solitary source - which appears reliable - that differs from the others, so it may be that careful wording should try to balance the different references. The more input, the better. As for the block, and why only Cs32en. Both parties are edit warring and technically there is a question on whether either went over 3RR, so instead I reviewed the non article editing. UrukHaiLoR has been attempting to resolve this matter by discussion, noting differences and suggesting methods of incorporating both viewpoints - Cs32en has been disparaging such efforts, and misrepresenting policy to support their preferred version. Further, Cs32en has actively disrupted Misplaced Pages by removing another editors comments (UHLR's notice to this board) and posting a "counterclaim" in what would appear to be a bad faith attempt to both divert attention from their actions and to "win" the content dispute. While the question over edit warring may be further investigated and possible actions taken, I have suspended Cs32en's editing privileges so that they may have the opportunity to reflect on the appropriate methods of resolving editing difficulties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Wehwalt's request for the three revets, here they are: 1st time - in edits from to he deleted and reverted all of my edits, 2nd time - and 3rd time - .UrukHaiLoR (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack (DYK Queue 5) needs attention

UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs) is trying to insert synthesis into Camp Chapman attack. More eyes on the article would be helpful, as it's on the DYK Queue.  Cs32en  19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just posting to note that this user has just been blocked for 31 hours and cannot continue in this thread unless unblocked (likewise for the thread above this one, which appears to be the other person's viewpoint of the same dispute). -- Soap /_{Contributions} 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a gesture of good faith here, particularly with this baffling rationale. Block seems appropriate, notwithstanding the issue. --Moonriddengirl 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en posted a note saying the removal was an inadvertent edit conflict and that his note you linked referred to this removal from his own talk page. *shrug* Call me naive, but I buy it. I'm sure Cs32en is experienced enough to know that a stunt like that would 1) not go undetected, 2) result in swift action. henrik•talk 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know him or his experience level, but that seems plausible. --Moonriddengirl 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While it is possible that Cs32en accidentally removed UHLR's comment, it is unlikely. It could have been done by opting to edit the entire page and opening the edit page before UHLR did so, and then saving after UHLR. To do this Cs32en would needed to have taken longer to post two sentences and sign than UHLR did with several paragraphs. Any other scenario would have resulted in edit conflict warnings. Again, possible if UHLR composed his comments off-page and just copied them over - but I would point to this diff where UHLR notified Cs32en of his intention to notify the admin board. It remains unlikely that this is only an unfortunate turn of events. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That does make it seem somewhat less plausible. :/ Well, whether this was inadvertent or not, the behavior around the issues in the article remains problematic. He has been blocked for edit warring before and should be familiar with dispute resolution practices. --Moonriddengirl 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's at least possible that he did it by accident. Here's an example of me doing the same thing a few months ago, and I still don't know why. I believe that there will be no edit conflict warning if the user is editing from a "diff view" version of the page, since the software assumes the user knows better. That might explain both my example and his. I have no opinion on anything else related to this ANI because I haven't read it. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize to UrukHaiLoR and to the other involved editors for (inadvertantly) removing his report from this noticeboard. I used the "new section" tab to make my edit, while UrukHaiLoR's report was not yet on the page. Then, at the edit conflict window, I copied my text from the lower part of the window into the upper part. I did not remove any text from the upper window, but somehow my edit resulted in the removal of the report. Then, I went to look for specific additional sources (the URLs, as I knew that the sources existed) corroborating the ABC report. Returning to the noticeboard, and refreshing the page, I saw UrukHaiLoR's report, and the banner informing me of his message on my talk page. I should have read his message more carefully. As I had just seen his report to the noticeboard, unaware that I had deleted it before, I thought that UrukHaiLoR would refer to a previous 3rr notice he left on my talk page. I responded to UrukHaiLoR, stating that removing a notice would be seen as evidence that the editor had read the notice (which of course refers to talk page notices).
• UrukHaiLoR claims that no sources have reported on the death of the Afghan security director at Camp Chapman, other than ABC. He says that three sources would confirm his view. However, neither of the sources explicitly supports what he added to the article (i.e. that no other media reported on the death), nor does any of the sources say that the security director would not have died. There are several sources, other than ABC, that have reported that he was killed in the attack: The National (Kuwait), India Times, AGI (Italian Press agency) Chosun Ilbo (Korea). The Associated Press reported that an Afghan was killed (Kansas city newspaper with AP text).
• At the beginning, UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee, (edit summary: "Fixing some grammer errors and working a bit on the style") and inserted the claim that nine people would have been killed in the attack into the article, a claim that was not supported by any source at the time and was based on synthesis on his part.
• In his report to the noticeboard, UrukHaiLoR says that I would have stated at one point during the discussion that six CIA operatives had died in the attack (see point 3). Instead, my edits to the article stated that "at least six" resp. "six or seven" CIA officers (not operatives) were killed in the attack, thus reconciling the available sources. (It is now likely, according to reliable sources, that four or five CIA officers were killed.) UrukHaiLoR is misrepresenting our previous discussion with regard to this issue.
• I initially discussed the issue with UrukHaiLoR in a rather lengthy exchange of opinions at my talk page (talk page archive). I admit that I got annoyed by UrukHaiLoR arguments, in which he constantly synthesized information taken from various sources, instead of sticking to what the sources actually said. At that point, I should have filed a request for comment myself, instead of just suggesting to UrukHaiLoR to do so. After discussing the issue repeatedly, I grew rather impatient, and responded rather swiftly to UrukHaiLoR's comments. It would have been better at that point to leave the editing process to other editors, and I think that it is a good thing for me now to take a short break from editing anyway, whether my block is being upheld or not.
• I think it is important that the article is well sourced, without original research or synthesis. Also, it's important that any information is closely linked to the respective source, and that no information is being inserted into sentences that are based on unrelated sources. This is especially important, as the article is currently in the Did you know queue, and I hope that more editors will have a closer look at the article during the next few days.  Cs32en  21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cs32en's comments

In response to Cs32en's comments at his discussion page that Henrik copyed to this noticebord. He stated the following about the three refs I provided that would confirm my edit: He says that three sources would confirm his view. However, neither of the sources explicitly supports what he added to the article (i.e. that no other media reported on the death), nor does any of the sources say that the security director would not have died. All sources confirm that eight people died in the attack, seven of them CIA operatives and one Jordanian operative, no mention of an Afghan. I think that falls under the category that no other media reported on the death. Also if any administrators start to think, like I also did in the begining myself, that the Afghan is possibly one of the CIA operatives, I would like to point out that the president of the United States and the CIA itself stated all 7 CIA operatives were Americans and all seven are to be buried in the US. Again, no mention of an Afghan. I have provided refs for this above.

To continue, his accusation - At the beginning, UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee and inserted the claim that nine people would have been killed in the attack into the article, a claim that was not supported by any source at the time and was based on synthesis on his part. I am sorry for saying this but this is simple lying and manipulation of information on his part. After the mention of the possible death of the Afghan yes I did sum him up with the others to get a number nine but this was since it was confirmed that 7 Americans and a Jordanian were confirmed dead, 1+7+1=9. However, I did not at the same time claim that the Afghan was also one of the CIA operatives, this is pure lying on Cs32en's part. It was later that day when I saw that they didn't change the official number of dead from eight to nine that I deduced the possibility the Afghan was one of the 7 CIA employees. After that I changed the number back to eight. In the days following the number of dead maintained to be eight but all of the CIA were confirmed to be Americans, no Afghan. Thus the information on the Afghan has become unreliable. However user Cs32en continued to insist that while the official number of the dead in the article is to be stated to be eight (7 CIA and 1 Jordanian), he continued to mention the death of the Afghan security director as an additional ninth death, while not stating that he was a ninth death thus maintaining the number eight. User Cs32en's reasoning is beyond me.

As for his additional sources of proof that the Afghan died: 1st source - India Times , doesn't mention the Afghan killed by name just states an Afghan and the article is dated the same day as the previous original ABC article that mentioned Arghwan, also it should be noted that the india times article also states that again eight died, of them 7 CIA (all Americans) and 1 Jordanian, how did this Afghan come here magicaly?; 2nd source - Italian news report dated at the same time Januar 2-3 as the previous ones, once translated the information is highly simillar to that of the ABC article, most likely the Italian newspaper reported what the ABC article reported; 3rd - a Korean news article , I don't know Korean but my guess is it's the same as the Italian one; 4th - the Kansas news article states eight Americans and one Afghan died, that was reported only a few days after the attack and is unreliable since it has been confirmed that seven not eight Americans died. Would you please point to me one other English or US news article that states Arghwan died, that is not a copy-paste of the ABC article? Except for ABC there is no other US or English news media that reports his death, but I give credit to Cs32en for digging up the articles in Italian and Korean.

And his final accusation of a possibility that only four or five CIA officers died and not seven, it has been sourced and proven the CIA consideres contractors as it's operatives, and the article has made a distinction, seven CIA employees - 4 officers and 3 contractors.

Summery once again, user Cs32en insists on counting the Afghan security director as one of the dead based on one lone notable article, he insists that eight people died (which I agree) - 7 CIA (all Americans confirmed) and 1 Jordanian. However he still wants to state the Afghan died separate of the others which would make nine deaths but still keep talking eight died, I think his math is a bit off. My compromise solution to him was, and I think it to be the best, is to state the following - Initial reports also stated that the security director of the base, an Afghan named Arghawan, was also killed in the attack. However, in the days after the attack no mention of Arghawan among the casualties had been made.. He rejected this by saying the article should still say - Eight people died: 7 CIA agents, 1 Jordanian agent and one Afghan security director. 8=7+1+1??? I tried to compromise with him to than include the Afghan as one of the CIA operatives since he worked for them despite the fact the CIA and the president of the United States said they were all Americans, he rejected this compromise too. This compromise I only proposed since six of the seven CIA operatives were identified or partialy identified, the seventh was still unknown so I came to the assumption of an off posibility of the seventh being Arghawan, but today the posibility of the seventh being the CIA Kabul deputy chief came to light and thus the posibility of Arghawan being among the dead was shot down for good.

For more proof see the table with the list of casualties in the article here per Cs32en's edit:

Is that eight or nine people I see in the table?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still open for compromise despite he is not. He wants to include Arghawan? Fine than say nine died. He wants to say eight died? Fine but you cann't include Arghawan. You cann't say eight people died and than list nine fatalities.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en's reply

UrukHaiLoR's statements above illustrate the type of communication I have been subjected to while discussing the issue with him.

• A general comment on the issue of the number of dead: Two people were seriously injured, and we cannot exclude the possibility that one or both of them died subsequently, thus changing the actual number of dead. This is just one possibility that makes even simple math difficult in this case.
• UrukHaiLoR says that the Times of India would not mention Arghawan by name. The Times of India says : "killing eight people, including an Afghan security director" "the suicide bomber was often picked up from a border crossing by a trusted Afghan security director named Arghawan and driven to the base" "there was a suicide blast that killed eight people, including Arghawan".
• I have not included any articles on the issue that say some like "According to ABC,..." Also, ABC says it spoke to someone close to the security director, so ABC is not simply repeating some claim from an uninvolved person.
• On the issue of 8/9 killed: I have added "unconfirmed" to the entry of the Kabul CIA station deputy chief in the table. UrukHaiLoR has removed this qualification in his last edit to the article.
• UrukHaiLoR says that my statement that "UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee" would be "simple lying and manipulation of information on his part". However, he makes at least two statements to that effect in a section of the talk page section of that article which he named "Revised list of casualties based on new references provided by our friend Cs32en, thank you :)". The comments included the following remarks: "It's over, Cs32en" and "You are out of arguments Cs32en, anything you say from this point is simply POV-pushing." Also, on my talk page, he said "haha......Wait......Wait.....I just noticed something I got it, the Afghan security chief, he was a CIA officer as well, he was probably an American of Afghan origin, it would make sense." "Why is his body being buried in the US if he was only an Afghan? Hmmm? Stop fighting this man. Jeez." (talk page archive)
• I had accepted the "compromise" that UrukHaiLoR refers to. However, after the New York Times reported the death of a CIA officer that had not previously been disclosed, it was no longer reasonable to infer that the Afghan would have been a CIA contractor. (It never was anything else than synthesis, from a policy viewpoint.) I therefore removed the description of Arghawan as a "CIA contractor" in this edit.  Cs32en  23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that we are past the block/unblock stage, how is this not a matter that cannot be compromised? There are many articles with uncertain information, where we sometimes put both sets of information and explain the circumstances to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Why can't you tell the reader how different news sources report different numbers? Seems a lot simpler than an ANI thread. ALI 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I totaly agree with you too. But that's the problem. I have been trying to compromise but everything I proposed didn't sit well with Cs32en. The facts are everyone is reporting eight people died (7 American CIA officers and 1 Jordanian officer). No mention of the Afghan. No mention of the Afghan. However, I would be open to compromise to state that Between 8 and 9 people died (7 American CIA officers, 1 Jordanian officer and possibly the Afghan security chief). Per user ALI's recomendation. However the problem is Cs32en, doesn't want to agree to this. Because according to him that is OR, and I realy have no idea why is it OR if ABC is such a reliable source according to him. While Cs32en is telling that putting that nine died is synthesis he himself is listing nine people on the fatalities list while still saying that eight people died overall. Is that normal? At this point I am open for a compromise not to exclude the Afghan security chief from the list of those killed, but Cs32en has to agree that we put that - Eight or nine people died in the attack. Among those killed were 7 CIA operatives, 1 Jordanian intelligence agent and according to some sources possibly the Afghan security chief of the base. Is this satisfying? I think you cann't get any more compromising than this, even though everyone is still reporting only 8 people died, not including the Afghan.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to say both "some sources" and "possibly". If you say "some sources", the reader knows there is doubt. How bout: "While most news sources report eight deaths from the bombing (including the assailant), some report that the Afghan base security chief, Arghawan, was also killed."--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I could agree to that, but without (including the assailant), since the number eight is 7 CIA and one Jordanian military officer. OK, I would agree to While most news sources report eight deaths from the bombing, seven CIA operatives and one Jordanian military intelligence officer, some report that the Afghan base security chief, Arghawan, was also killed. But the statement that Eight or nine people died in the attack. needs also to be included.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Shows what I know (grimace). I am afraid I have not followed the details of this story. Well, that sounds good, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Are you pro-Orc, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Orc? o.O?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Cs32en's talk page at his request

On the compromise: I wouldn't mind personally if the article says 8 or 9 in the lead. We have no source for "9" anywhere, however. NPR now says the deputy Kabul CIA station chief did not die, so we are back to eight dead anyway ("The deputy chief of station survived the blast, according to several intelligence officials, but is in grave condition at a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany." NPR) So the prior compromise with UrukHaiLoR (indicating that Arghawan would be a "CIA contractor", although there is no single source that says so) could be reinstated.

I always assumed that the burden of proof would be on the editor who inserts new information, in this case speculation about the status of the security director, or the aggregate number of nine fatalities. Apparently, this is not always the case. There are several difficulties with UrukHaiLoR last edit to the article (which repeated previous edits) :

UrukHaiLoR

1. changes "its security director" to "possibly the Kabul CIA station deputy chief", not supported by any of the sources that are given at the end of the sentence that he modified;
2. removes a reference to the Financial Times
3. changes "Some of the names" to "The names of five", not supported by the source, which says "some of the names have been disclosed in local media". In addition, the New York Times reports that one name has been disclosed by an online journal , so the information given by UrukHaiLoR is also factually wrong.
4. UrukHaiLoR also inserts the words "Initial reports have stated" and "in the days after the attack ... no mention of Arghawan has been made," two statements that are not supported by the sources he has given, and the second statement also appears to be factually wrong (see the sources I have provided, i.e. Associated Press, The National, India Times, AGI, Chosun Ilbo).

I hope that by now there are enough eyes on the article, so that synthesis and original research can be avoided. I do not think, however, that a compromise, as outlined above, would resolve the basic issue here, which is that I prefer to stick to what sources actually say, while UrukHaiLoR tends to extrapolate from the sources and thus to engage in synthesis, sometimes original research, i.e. not combining information in an unwarranted way, but deducing new information by comparing sources. The new information that is now available on the deputy chief of the Kabul CIA station (alive, not dead) illustrates the danger in such an approach.

Having said that, I would not revert UrukHaiLoR if he would reinsert such language, but would rather file an RFC (concerning such content which is not included in a potential compromise). I remain, however, concerned about the integrity of the article, which need to stay well-sourced, especially as it is in the DYK queue.  Cs32en  03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page?

Take the content discussion to the talk page. Unless someone else feels like joining Cs32en in being blocked, I don't see what admins can do here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:UrukHaiLoR blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Top Gun

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins". The first reason for this block sounds very familiar to me, and there is abundant additional evidence.  Cs32en  02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I was a bit hasty in resolving this issue. This looks to me like you are doing an underhand attempt at "winning" this content dispute. Shut this down please, or else someone else will do so. You are getting disruptive, this doesn't look good for you Cs32en. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I posted on the Sockpuppet investigations page, I think that a checkuser is fully justified here. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. If this proves not to be the case of sock-puppetry, then I would suggest some form of sanctions for disruptive editing, which this looks like to me. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I take that back, that's far too harsh. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

UrukHaiLoR has just been blocked by Nick-D; see user talk:UrukHaiLoR and the SPI linked above. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 04:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd note that it was not in regards to this particular article; I haven't read through this thread in any detail, though arguing over the number of casualties in a recent battle or terrorist attack is consistent with Top Gun's standard behavior. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Cs32en is entitled to a great big "I told you so". Trout slappings where appropriate. Issues resolved; next case?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons given for blocking are less than compelling. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to start a new subsection and explain your rationale for saying that? I haven't reviewed the evidence in detail, but from what Nick D stated on UrukHai's talk page, it isn't totally off the wall.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly simple really, technically the CheckUser can't see that the editor is a sock-puppet as the old accounts are stale. I think that the fact that the editor was editing those articles, while a bit suspicious, is not really enough evidence to prove they are a sock-puppet. But, as I've stated on Nick's user talk page, I'll not pursue this any further as I'd rather not cause too much wikidrama than has already occured here. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've detailed on UrukHaiLoR's talk page, the similarities between the edits made by that account and those made by Top Gun go beyond what can be explained by coincidence; UrukHaiLoR has focused on the same types of articles and made the same types of contributions (including continuing the OR which contributed to Top Gun's block). The creation of the Danish Defence casualties in Afghanistan today using the same methodology and relatively complex format as two other Top Gun articles (which were either deleted or totally changed before the UrukHaiLoR account became active) is particularly telling. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have collected much more evidence than what had actually been used in the SPI investigation. I assume that part of this evidence might be useful to discover additional sockpuppets, and possible sockmaster accounts. I would present the additional evidence to a member of ArbCom, or to a CheckUser, yet I don't want to show Top Gun (talk · contribs) or other blocked users how they might be able to avoid getting detected.  Cs32en  06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit unfair. "We would use special tools to prove your guilt/innocence, but we're not going to because we don't want you to know about them." That said, I'm not convinced that UrukHai is innocent, but I thin a CU should be requested to make sure. ALI 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see if UrukHai contests the block. So far, he hasn't. If he does, I would say that, depending on what UrukHai has to say for himself, there may need to be more disclosure. I say that we mark this resolved, and if UrukHai requests an unblock, either start a new thread or deal with it on his talk page. Cs32en comes out of this looking reasonably good, but a reminder that if he hadn't given UrukHai an opening by deleting his AN/I intervention, which focused our attentions supiciously on him, there might have been considerably less drama. Everyone skulk offstage, now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I really can understand that people get upset and suspicicious if things are deleted from the noticeboard, especially in situations like this one. As far as I can tell, the removal of his report associated with my edit, however, was a technical malfunction, not a human error on my part.  Cs32en  15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, I didn't use any special tools to find the evidence. Everyone can find it. However, if Top Gun (talk · contribs) knew about the evidence, he could change his habits, so that future sockpuppet he will be running avoid displaying the same evidence. That UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs) was able to make more than a thousand edits before being detected is unfortunate, in my opinion. Again, I much prefer to show the evidence to trusted members of the community only, but if the case is reopened, and I would be asked to provide more evidence, I would always do so, of course.  Cs32en  14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ALI, a checkuser was been requested, but apparently isn't feasible for technical reasons. While I don't necessarily endorse the approach suggested by Cs32en, I'd also note that the guidance for submitting sock puppet reports at WP:SPI states that "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection". Given the frequency with which Top Gun has attempted to evade their block it's in everyone's interest that he not be given notice of the means used to identify him (though it is likely by now that he is aware of them). Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually have informed UrukHaiLoR of the SPI request I had file. While he may be aware of some of the evidence that exists, I doubt very much that he would be aware of certain types of evidence that exist, but that have not been used in the sockpuppet investigation.  Cs32en  08:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

There was a very minor edit war going on there between an IP user and user:Skapperod (from what i see they each made 1 revert). Then admin user:BaronLarf appeared on the scene and slapped a semi-protection to the article without even trying to talk to them first. I request the semi-protection is lifted because 1) it is premature 2) semi-protection should be used only if both content disputants are IPs.  Dr. Loosmark  20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The story is somewhat different. User:Mamalala had moved the lead section that was stable for months into the (existing) background section on 6 Jan, where the lead section obviously does not belong. I have reverted that edit on 8 Jan, several other users did so too. Mamalala reverted back. When Mamalala did 3 reverts, an IP continued to do the same, and additionally deleted a referenced section. I reverted the IP, the IP reverted me, BaronLarf protected (the IPs version!). There is certainly no fault on BaronLarf's side.

What makes that episode suspicious is Mamalala's user page stating "I will fly over you soon", and the IP started editing from a plane geolocate 12.130.116.227 about three hours after Mamalala made his last logged-in edit. Which probably renders the semi moot anyways, it seems. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the problems on the article were identified long ago, already in July or August I think. So that the section was "stable" only means that nobody dares to touch the article because Skapperod immediately opposes changes. The article is simply way too long and some things unfortunately have to be reduced. Instead of starting a revert war why doesn't Skapperod propose some alternative solution? And to clarify the so called "referenced section" doesn't really belong to the article, in fact it is my understanding that there was sort of consensus on the talk (minus Skapperod) to do so. In any event admin BaronLarf (who btw never before showed interest in the article) should have IMO tried to at least talk to the editors instead of protecting the article so quickly. Finally I don't get why is Skapperod launching a personal attack against user Mamalal. If he thinks their user page is innapropriate he can simply report it or something.  Dr. Loosmark  22:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A week or so ago I had already posted a suggestion on the talk page to discuss major changes before they continue, since this appears to be a contentious issue. (diff). Discussion began to occur between several users. Then an anonymous IP began removing large portions of the article (diff), and then reverting attempts by other users to place it back (diff). At this time I put on a soft protect on the page to prevent more removal of material, and explained the soft protect on the talk page. (diff and diff). I protected the page to prevent further blankings by anonymous editors, as well as to try to convince editors to reach a consensus before continuing to edit. This appears to be a permissible use as it states at WP:PP. I did not want to have to place full protection on the article yet, hoping that it would not be necessary. If the consensus here on ANI is that full protection should have been used, I have no problem with using that instead. The dispute on this particular article appears to me to be one front in a content dispute over Polish-German-Lithuania-Czech history involving some of the same editors. (Ex: Tadeusz Kościuszko, History of Gdańsk, et al.) I had been planning to remove the protection as soon as consensus had been reached. Cheers, --BaronLarf 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The above comment by BaronLarf shows exactly the problem is, by accusing the IP of "removing large portions of the article" he adopted exactly Skapporod's terminology and his POV. The "large of portions of the article" is actualy a section about Germans in America during WW2 which does not belong to the article. It's ridiculous that the article has to be protected coz Skapperod started an edit war.  Dr. Loosmark  02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with any editing of a portion of an article with good reason, and the reason that you have given seems to be a good one. I was simply alarmed by what appeared to me to be blanking of sections with no edit summaries. That combined with another user also raising an alarm and an edit war ensuing caused me to semi-protect the article until consensus was reached. I did not revert any removals. I am not taking Skapperod's side--I actually semi-protected the page at state after another user reverted his edits. As I see that Dr. Loosmark is assuming bad faith on my part, I welcome the contributions of others users perceived to be neutral, such as Wehwalt, in improving the article. Cheers.--BaronLarf 03:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems pretty reasonable to me. BaronLarf's action was warranted, I don't think we have anything else to see here. I'm going to mark this as resolved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User:woogie10w

My concerns regarding this article are as follows:

1-There is a section on German Americans interned in the war that is not related to the topic. This is OR and should be deleted.

2-The article needs to be copyedited and slimmed down. The current article is poorly written and sorely needs a lot of cleanup work. Over the years this article has become a hodgepodge of edits by editors who acted in good faith but unfortunately lack historical expertise. The historical facts need to be narrated in a credible scholarly article rather than the current disjointed, poorly written mess that exists at this time.

3-The comparable articles on German Misplaced Pages Vertreibung] and Heimatvertriebener do a much better job covering this controversial topic

4-The inclusion of the ultra-right wing author Heinz Nawratil drags the article into the gutter. He is mainstream and persona grata in Germany, however in the English speaking world his association with the Institute for Historical Review makes him a poor choice as a source. Misplaced Pages should have a zero tolerance policy for persons possessing neo-Nazi tendencies--Woogie10w (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't know what a neo Nazi tendency is. Is it kind of like my car tending to pull a little bit to the right if I'm not careful?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing for the Institute for Historical Review--Woogie10w (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Is everyone who writes for that a neo-Nazi? Surprised that there are that many neo-Nazis who can read and write. Anyway, I don't see much to be done here. It is plainly a content dispute, and you guys need to work it out. I am afraid we don't do copyediting here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, you guys don't have a clue regarding the content of the article. That is why it has become such a mess. Good night.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take it the wrong way. I do have some knowledge of the subject matter, I've read the book After the Reich, which includes lengthy descriptions of the expulsion of those of German ethnicity from Eastern Europe. I just don't see that we can do anything as admins here. We are not competent to judge the quality of the sources, and consider finding someone outside the picture to mediate the differences.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you get a chance, check out the article. Maybe you can help.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. It strikes me as in great need of copyediting, that is for sure. I will look it over more thoroughly within the next couple of days, and in the meantime will watchlist it and keep an eye on the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the page needs the attention of an knowledgeable admin with a NPOV--Woogie10w (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some say I have passable writing skills as well ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took look at your user page, as an Attorney I am sure your critical eye will help sort out the mess over there. BTW it has been 40 years since I read about Hiss, I reaaly would like to know the story of how the KGB under Yelsin turned him in.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to do Hiss, I have all the references, I just need some time at home which I'm not going to get for a while. Anyway, I'm going to keep on top of the situation at the article and will help with rewriting. I suggest we mark this resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Discographer

Discographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I was rather surprised to see this post on my talk page from an editor who I have never encountered before (AFAIK). In nearly 4 years of editing here, I've never been on the receiving end of such crudeness. Since I wasn't in a position to knee him in the groin, I didn't want to make a drama of it, so just told the eejit to get lost, with a good dose of sarcastic contempt: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Our_tongues_in_each_others_mouths.

I'd have left it at that, but another editor posted to my talk page suggesting this needed action, which is why I'm posting here.

I'm OK to leave it at this so long as the idiot stays away from my talk page, but it seems that may not be the view of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That type of behavior is unacceptable. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

BHG is more than capable of delivering a verbal knee in the groin where appropriate and I don't think she needs any help in dealing with this incident. The point is simply that we don't tolerate those kind of comments around here. Editors who make them to other editors way are not welcome. Immediate block. No questions asked. That is not the atmosphere we want. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've added a message expressing my disgust on Discographer's talk page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They have posted an apology. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to include a WP:BLPSPS violation.

Please note that there is an ensuing edit war at Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley to include a clear WP:BLPSPS violation in order to include a disparaging and denigrating photograph on this man's BLP. See and . Many editors besides myself have tried to have the image removed on other grounds, but this seems to be a square on violation of WP:BLPSPS. I seek to have the edit war put to an end and to have those seeking to include the offending image reminded that this article falls under the new Climate Change Probation and that violations of WP:BLPSPS will not be tolerated.

Note that another discussion was started here. --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. If this is a biographies of living persons matter, shouldn't you be discussing it at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? --TS 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a policy violation. Either board is sufficient, but since you insist I'll go post a notice of this report there as well. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. See. I asked that the conversation be conducted here. --GoRight (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a suitable warning here of my intent to report repeated violations. --GoRight (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that you've reverted two separate editors on this matter? I sympathize with your view that this is a BLP issue, and grant you leeway on that, but how about chatting about it a bit more? It's been in the article for some time now and it's obviously a picture of Monckton. --TS 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to my good friend Tony, the provisions of WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS are not something that can be negotiated so chatting would seem to serve little purpose. This is a very clear violation and it must be removed per the policies referenced. If I am wrong on that point I am sure that the neutral admins here will inform me of such. --GoRight (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture is very poor and represents him badly, it seems that he was caught unawares by a group of young climate change protesters, I also think it negatively represents him and should not be used to represent a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some much nicer ones by the same photographer on flickr but apparently they are not acceptable either. It's the Principle, Dammit! Though I must confess I don't see precisely what principle is being pursued here. --TS 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a bit confused. How is this a violation of self-published sources? AniMate 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How can Flickr be considered anything BUT self-published? People upload their own material with no oversight. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we get rid of all of our photographs of living people, because all of them are either self published on Flickr or self published here. AniMate 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be silly. Also it is an exaggeration. Images for which we have received explicit permission would obviously be usable. Also images published in WP:RS that grant suitable copyright permission would also be usable. But images published in WP:SPS such as Flickr by someone other than the subject are NOT acceptable according to the policies as they are currently written. --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I think Monckton has some kind of medical history meaning that his eyes appear bulbous. I'm not sure that the photo is particularly unflattering or whatever, it is just what he looks like. Bearing that in mind, this just looks like a picture of him engaging with either journalists or the public and does not reflect badly on him. --FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall quote from WP:BLPSPS to save everyone the time:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

The restriction I have highlighted is all encompassing (i.e. "material" includes images) and unambiguous (i.e. unless it was put there by Monckton himself it is not suitable for inclusion in a BLP). Note that it makes no distinction about whether the material is positive, neutral, or negative. It is ALL unacceptable. --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We have literally thousands of images of living people uploaded by Misplaced Pages contributors and Flickr photographers. Misplaced Pages has had a policy from the start of encouraging user-generated photographs. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am citing a policy. I am not sure what you are citing, please clarify. But unless it is also a policy then mine trumps yours. If you are citing a policy then they are in conflict and need to be reconciled. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking on flickr and there are pictures far better but not at commons, has he really got bulbous eye syndrome? There is nothing on his article that suggests that.I couldn't also find the picture still on flikr? He is being confronted as I said in the picture by climate change protesters as the description at commons clearly says, the picture was uploaded by User talk:ChrisO . Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I had previously tried to edit that information into the caption for the picture. It was edit warred as well. Regardless, any pictures from Flickr are deemed inappropriate for use per WP:BLPSPS which is unabmiguous with respect to SPS. --GoRight (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he has Exophthalmos. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically Graves disease (Barbara Bush suffered from the same thing). The claim of a BLP violation is insane, considering that Misplaced Pages has had a policy from the start of encouraging user-generated pictures. The following is GoRight's "rationale" (I use the term advisedly) on the article talk page: "How can we be assured that this image actually IS a photo of Monckton? How do we know that this is not some imposter made up to look like Lord Monckton in a disparaging likeness?" I find it hard to believe that even GoRight believes this. It looks like (yet more) wikilawyering to me from an editor who has gained an unenviable reputation in that department. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask my good friend ChrisO to review WP:NPA before referring to my posts as insane. My rationale, as stated above, does NOT, let me repeat does NOT, depend on the text you have highlighted above, although that text DOES establish why even a photograph is subject to WP:BLPSPS. Either way, the use of SPS material in a BLP is clearly and unambiguously excluded as being usable. This is regardless of whether that material is positive, neutral, or negative. --GoRight (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, that has never been the situation in practice. We have thousands of such images on Misplaced Pages, donated by Wikipedians, Flickr photographers and other contributors. You are reading something into BLP that has never been applied in practice and which is completely contradicted by Misplaced Pages's long-standing policy on encouraging user-generated images. Your approach would require thousands of images across Misplaced Pages to be deleted. It's a complete non-starter. I think you know it's a non-starter. I've never seen anyone make the claim before that you have here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of noise in this thread, so let me see if I can distill your argument into a sentence or so: You say that WP policy prohibits all self-published material in BLPs, so pictures taken by Wikipedians or other non-mainstream-media sources are not usable in BLPs. Is this it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"You say that WP policy prohibits all self-published material in BLPs" - With the exception of SPS published by the subject themselves, yes.

"so pictures taken by Wikipedians or other non-mainstream-media sources are not usable in BLPs" - Not strictly true. If these individuals have their pictures published in an otherwise WP:RS then they would be eligible for inclusion so long as they granted a suitable free-use license. But yes, this is an implication of WP:BLPSPS as it is currently written. --GoRight (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately it has now been changed to close this supposed loophole, which you appear to be the first person to spot or try to exploit (neither of which do you much credit, I have to say). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would again ask my good friend ChrisO to review WP:NPA for a second time. --GoRight (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there any other pictures of him that we can use on Misplaced Pages? If not then perhaps we should think of asking e.g. the BBC if they are willing to let us use one of their pics for this and other articles. The BBC frequently refers to Misplaced Pages for further reading in some cases, so they should be willing to help us out. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd need a free picture (that is, not just one for us to use, but one for anybody to use under our free license). Historically we have relied on Wikipedians and the like with cameras going to an event and pressing the shutter button then uploading. Self-published? Yes, of course. --TS 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I think this picture is fine. I think it actually reflects well on him - his public role involves engaging with people and that is what he is doing in the photo. I think it would be ethically wrong to search out a photo of him that makes his Graves Disease (or whatever it is) seem less evident. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above that it makes no sense to prohibit non-reliably-published photos, even (or especially!) in BLP cases since published photos are almost never available under an acceptable copyright. The appropriate policy to go by is WP:MUG: is this image taken out of context and does it present the subject in an unflattering light? Maybe, but it's not clear-cut. If that's actually representative of what he looks like, then it's ok to use and even more it's probably a WP:BLP violation to call the image "disparaging and denigrating" as GoRight has been doing, since it implies a negative judgement about the man's looks. On the other hand, the "confronted by activists" part of the Flickr description hints that he was taken in a state of surprise which might have exaggerated his features. So I'm not sure whether it can stay or go, but I think it should be a matter of editorial judgement rather than administrative action. Which is to say, take it to the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This really seems to be him, compare to and . --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One important point which I think it's worth making is that Graves' disease is apparently a progressive degenerative condition. A picture of Monckton taken several years ago like this one is not going to represent Monckton's current appearance. People have said "but he doesn't look like that in other pictures", but an up-to-date picture is of course going to differ from an old one, given the Graves' disease factor. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to make this determination. That's why WP:BLP and WP:RS were created. We rely on other independent sources to make such determinations. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall enjoy watching your newfound zeal re: BLP-compliant photos as it is expressed towards subjects encompassing the complete spectrum of political and cultural views. GJC 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?Jarhed (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44

According to the guidelines for College Football Bowl games, the page should reflect the records of the two teams coming into the game. Carthage44 (talk · contribs) has been informed of this several times on his page, based on him edit warring at the 2010 Cotton Bowl Classic page the day of the game. He's returned again today, and made mass changes to quite a few bowl games from the last two years. Multiple editors have tried to correct him, but he's changing the in-page notes as he goes and pretending the policy was always that way.

Note this editor earlier was warned earlier today about changing the scores of games to indicate they were finals BEFORE the game actually ended by MrArticleOne, his response was simply "Don't be mad... because I got it first!"

Can a patient admin please try and get him to listen? He appears to be an immature editor who can do good grunt work around Misplaced Pages, but doesn't seem to get it. My last contact with him makes me think he's not going to listen to me. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: When informed about this ANI thread, the editor blanked it. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44 (talk · contribs) is now openly edit warring with multiple editors across many Bowl game articles. Can we please get an admin to step in, so we can fix the changes? Thanks again. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Carthage44 (talk · contribs) is reverting good-faith edits on bowl games and openly ignoring consensus on the infobox layout. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it vandalism? Am I free to rollback to assist? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late. Done. Decided that accusing other editors of vandalism and refusing to enter discussion on this point (deleting all warnings and good-faith attempts to talk it out) was enough bad faith and could be considered vandalism in itself. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is vandalism. He has had consensus building explained to him, been pointed to the correct template procedure, and he continues to edit war. He deletes any message left on his talk page that might be critical or try to correct him. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. He also just removed his block notice. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think that removeing a block notice is vandalsim Jade. To tell you the truth, when I got blocked back in september, I removed the whole discussion.--Coldplay Expért 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is nothing wrong with removing block notices. --Onorem♠Dil 03:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removing block notices are NOT against policy that I can see here and here, yet an admin has now blocked the editor totally for removing them. Is is right for an admin to WP:IAR just to make a WP:POINT? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. As I said on Requests for page protection, "Been flicking through some policies randomly over the past day, see if they've changed on me, and came across this just now. I remember being told a few months back (by an admin, I believe) that block messages were about the only thing that could not be removed from a talk page. It's possible, however, that they meant to say unblock messages." --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologised to him. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given him 24 hours off and have revoked his talk page access for the duration of the block. When he returns he can either work with others or he can be blocked again. AniMate 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While I support your decision, Are'nt you allowed to remove block notices?--Coldplay Expért 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why were talk page rights removed? Nev1 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said. When I was blocked, I removed the notice becasue I did'nt want to be considered part of the group of "disruptive editors" and yet I never had me talk page access removed....--Coldplay Expért 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always heard that it's unblock notices you're supposed to leave alone. Everything else is fair game, on the grounds that you've read it. Meanwhile, does the user Carthage actually have Rollback? Has he been using it to revert? (I kinda don't think so, given that he's posting edit summaries, in general). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:UP#CMT: "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops. Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices." Removing block notices is acceptable. There had better be some other reason for AniMate's actions. Nev1 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If any administrator disagrees, they are free to restore his talk page access. This user has a history of not communicating and edit warring, the block and subsequent loss of talk page access will let him know that neither are acceptable here. He can remove the block notice when it expires, but he's not going to keep reverting edits on his talk page or in articles when he needs to be communicating. AniMate 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there some new policy I am not aware of that says editors MUST communicate when removing messages from their own talk page? So he wasn't communicating back to you - it happens. From what I have seen of him, that's how he works. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, his actions on his talk page were in line with policy. Yours were not. Nev1 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the talk page block, the editor has spent the entire day ignoring good faith advice from editors and trying to pretend they've changed the policy. They need to understand that's not the way things work. Regardless of that, however, can we keep this discussion here on ANI, and not spilling over to the blocked user's page? That doesn't seem to be fair to them to have a discussion going on there while they can't contribute. Dayewalker (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44's actions on his talk page were within policy as demonstrated above. The block itself has merit, punitively removing talk page privileges does not. Nev1 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this flash by yesterday but didn't have time to say anything. Put broadly, a blocked user can remove anything and everything from their own talk page other than declined unblock requests. Moreover, no user need talk about anything on any talk page. While true that if there are other worries this can stir them up more quickly, not talking about something is, wholly in itself, allowed. The block itself seems sound but I saw no need to turn off the account's editing of their own talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

User:AYousefzai seems to undo every edit he does not agree with in the Muslim article. He has undone 4 of my edits and a couple of others by other editors that were not mine. Can someone please have a look at this situation? Dumaka (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered talking to him? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, but that is not working out all too well. Dumaka (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So you've chosen to edit war. Not good. Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit warring. I took it to the talk page but he still reverted my edits. Dumaka (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've been under this misconception. See . You really need to seek dispute resolution in a much more constructive manner. This is becoming chronic. Toddst1 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So asking for conflict resolution from a third party "twice" is considered chronic to you? Dumaka (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the relatively low number of edits you've made and the number of articles you've become deadlocked after leaving a single note on a single talk page, yes. As I've written twice on your talk page after your edit wars have been brought to my attention: "Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting." Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright fine. In the future I will be more constructive. But that still doesn't stop the fact that this individual has undone every edit I have made to the article and it seems like no one has warned him about the three-revert rule until I brought it to the Admin board. ("Relatively low number of edit"? I've made 1,736 edits. That's not low.) Dumaka (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on his talk page. If the issue you have is his conduct, you could try that first. You didn't even notify him, which as noted above is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dumaka is lying because I started the talk, not him. See bottom of Talk:Muslim He's putting image of Mongoloid boys in China at the lead intro of the Muslim article and I'm telling him that an average Muslim is not Chinese, and that China doesn't even have 1% of Muslims but he insists on putting the image of Mongols. Not only that, Dumaka is attacking me for no reason. Can you please revert the page to my version? Thanks!--AYousefzai (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• You're the one that just started reverting everything without cause or explanation. Just because the majority of Muslims are not Chinese doesn't mean there should not be a picture of them in the article.Dumaka (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• @AYousefzai: Why do you say China has 1% Muslims when you recently entered on the "Islam in China" article a (dubious) source that says China has 65 million Muslims, which is 4.5%? BTW I searched in several online databases through my university library and cannot find any issue of U.S. News for August 23, 2005, which you say was the source for your number. You need to verify this source, or it should be deleted. Also, that number (65 million) is about 3x the number that can be verified from any count of the population of nationalities in China's census that have a predominantly Muslim heritage (Uighurs, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Hui, etc.). So 65 million remains a dubious number in any case.~~Mack2~~ 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I must defend my self against these false accusations. I left messages in the edit summary then I left more messages at the talk page, but you (Dumaka) were reverting without explaining anything until now. I didn't remove the image of the Mongol boys from the article, I just placed it down below in another section.

The 2005 SPECIAL COLLECTOR'S EDITION ON ISLAM from U.S. News & World Report (Secrets of Islam) shows a map and a chart of all nations with the number of Muslims in them and it marks China with 65.3 million Muslims. However, other sources claim there's only 20 million Muslims in China. I paid around $5.99 for this issue and it's entirely about Islam from the front cover (with Muslim woman wearing black Burka) to the end cover (with Muslim girls from Indonesia). It's filled with the entire history of Islam and etc. Call the toll free number of U.S. News & World Report and tell them if such issue exists or place an order and see for yourself.--AYousefzai (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to the article talk pages everybody. As it says above, this is NOT the complaints board. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Matching text

If I'm reading correctly, some of the text in Nazi human experimentation matches directly the text in . MoodFreak (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How much of the text MoodFreak? If it is a few sentences, then you could paraphrase it and provide a proper verifiable reference/citation, assuming that the source satisfies WP:RS. (If you are unsure, you may make enquiries in this regard at WP:RSN). If, however, the bulk of the wikiarticle is unambiguously violative of the source material’s copyright, then it should be proposed for speedy deletion, criteria G12 (WP:CSD#G12). (This particular article has been around for awhile, so chances are WP:CSD#G12 would not apply. I mention it as a general principle for you.) Alternatively, if it is a large chunk of text, not easily paraphrased, yet not comprising the entire article, then the right course of action might be to delete the text that is copyrighted. As you can see, the answer to your query depends upon you highlighting for us the specific text that you fear violates copyright. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of instances during some research. Actually, there are many options in the above that you give me, so I may be able to do this myself... I'm not going to get in any hot water, simply removing or rephrasing text? Thanks, MoodFreak (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, you do not want to simply remove text. Instead, paraphrase in a way that does not violate copyright. Sprinkle the paraphrased text with important quotations from the copyrighted material being sure to use quotation marks and citations. Finally, as said above, be sure to provide verifiable references/citations throughout. Be sure to look at WP:RS for how to determine if a source is a reliable one (again, ask at WP:RSN if you are unsure). Look at WP:CITE for information on citing your reliable sources. Finally, WP:REFBEGIN provides a great primer on how to format your verifiable references/citations. Remember to cite fully. Do not provide only the raw internet address, a practice that will one day create deadlinks devoid of citations. Good luck and have fun! — SpikeToronto 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are additional options and actions which may be helpful in such situations. Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations sets out the basic approach, and specific instructions can be found at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#Instructions. While intended for administrators, Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Advice for admins may offer some useful advice for checking to see whether Misplaced Pages is infringing or being infringed upon in its investigation section. If you believe there is copyright infringement and you cannot clean the text yourself, it is better to remove it or to tag it so that other editors can. It's also helpful to identify when the material entered the article so that you can make sure that the contributor understands Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and does not create copyright problems in additional articles that could result in contributory infringement problems for the project.--Moonriddengirl 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest taking out the copyrightable material, then note on the talk page what you have done. Also read Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations as Moonriddengirl suggests above. But good catch! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Amir Vahedi

Just a heads up, there are tons of rumors circulating around the various poker blogs and forums that Amir Vahedi has passed away. As of yet there are no reliable sources to confirm this. This might be an article you might want to keep an eye on for possible premature reports.---Balloonman 06:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected it for a day. And confirmed there's nothing about him on Google News yet. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source now available - UPI confirms death. --John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected per Jclemens' rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish PostCodes - Whether An Post Supports or Not

Request assitsance resolving this dispute over content http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland_postal_addresses#An_Post.27s_Support_Or_Otherwise

Thanks: Dubhtail (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this noticeboard is only or incidents requiring technical or behavioural intervention from administrators. You would need to go to WP:RFC, WP:3O or WP:DR, probably. Good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and Improper use of tags by User:119.160.32.243

This user has been, for the past few days, continuously putting the NPOV tags on the articles on Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar. In addition, this user has been vandalising the page Younus AlGohar with derogatory language in Hindi. They seemed to justify this by calling the group and person a "terrorist organization/terrorist". It was explained to them that regardless of their opinion, the tag they were putting up was inappropriate, as there were no disputes on any of the article's talk pages: Talk:Younus AlGohar and Talk:Messiah Foundation International. They were encouraged to express their concerns on the talk pages, but they chose not to and instead continued to vandalise both articles. See User talk:119.160.32.243. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

• Its not vandlism but true if you look at this through Google this organization it has and this person, you can easily figure out that this organization it has and this person, are not worthy of having an article on wikipedia. It is a self-made cult, which is creating and spreading hatred in the society.--119.160.32.243 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Moreover, all their sources are not third party sources but their own websites, which is contrary to wikipedia rules and regulations.--119.160.32.243 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This 119.160.32.243 User is right.--Asikhi (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You are not understanding the problem. Regardless of your opinion or obligations you have, you are not going about it correctly. The edits you have made are NOT constructive edits to the Younus AlGohar page and the Messiah Foundation International page by adding the NPOV tag and foul language. It hardly supports whatever points you have. Plus, the articles themselves do actually source many third party sites such as news articles and reports by the UN. Anyway, if you DO have any other objections please list them in the talk pages of these articles instead of repeating your vandalism. Thanks (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC))
    • I appreciate that the anonymous editors might not be aware of how Misplaced Pages works. If they feel that this article should not exist on Misplaced Pages, they should consider taking to AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the IP editor explains on the articles' Talk pages why they think the articles are POV, their slapping of an NPOV tag on the articles is vandalism, as I have explained to them. Woogee (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor violating 3r and vandalising

Would someone be kind enough to block User:72.224.167.166 and/or protect the Aileen Wuornos article? This editor is intentionally adding wrong information to the article against WP:BLP and is now past 3r. This has been going on for days now. The editor has been warned both on the user page and in edit summaries but keeps playing this game which is boring. I have asked User:Lar to do this but he is not online at the moment. I would appreciate the help, so would others. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGal 12:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is for. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just coming here to let everyone know. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 13:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

*sigh* Ok, this one hurts to bring forward, as I worked very hard to bring forth a positive solution. Based on this long discussion the community agreed that WGB was prohibited from interacting at WP:RFA for a minimum of 30 days. Some had suggested longer, but the community decided to stick with 30. This was clearly all interactions due to some WP:POINTy votes in the past.

While heading over to vote, I noticed this vote and this one as well as an RFB vote. While admittedly more positive than previous pointiness, this is in direct violation of his ban from RFA.

I politely reminded him, and for that I received this surprising case of "I don't get it". When I showed him the link back to the discussion that he himself was involved in, I was threatened with "being reported".

My WP:AGF meter has run out in this case, and I leave this in y'all's hands to deal with as you see fit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like pretty clear consensus for a ban, and this seems like straightforward ban evasion. The denial of the existence of the ban is the most concerning part, unless there was some subsequent decision to overturn that consensus. --Moonriddengirl 13:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NEWS FLASH I was NOT banned. I will not tolerate a false complaint being filed against me, nor will I tolerate people making comments about me that I was banned, when I was not. If I have to file against everyone who does so I will. I was not banned so I strongly suggest that you do not make the statement again that I was. You just falsely accused me of "ban evasion" and I am not taking this anymore from other users here. If you insult me, make false accusations against me, whatever i will file a grievance on you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While you are evidently unhappy about the outcome of that discussion, consensus is quite clear. Unless there was some subsequent decision to overturn that consensus, you are banned from RfA for a period of 30 days. Moreover, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Ban#Evasion and enforcement, the period of that ban is reset after evasion, which means that the 30 days starts from your last edit to RfA. Additional sanctions may include blocking, and any comments you make at RfA may be discounted. You are welcome to file a grievance against me if you feel that my behavior is inappropriate (Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution contains some recommended fora), but please be advised that aggressive behavior such as this, which you placed after the above, is inappropriate. You cannot stifle criticism or discussion by issuing threats. --Moonriddengirl 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To prevent continuing dispruption by this editor I have issued an indefinite block. If they will agree to the terms of the agreed proposal and promise to stop threatening other editors, then I personally would not oppose an unblock. However I suspect that this may now have passed the limit of other editors' patience. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiGreekBasketball

I was NOT banned from RFA and that was the final decision. Now this user is trying to harass me and get me banned for a phantom violation. If he lets this go I will not file a complaint against him, but if not I will definitely do so. I know for a fact that filing false reports against others is not allowed.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion, I'd say there was indeed overwhelming support to ban you from RfA - the one or two "oppose" votes were insignificant, and, moreover, called for even stricter measures. WP:BURO applies - you won't get an official paper with the Great Seal signed by Jimbo himself. Please stick to the ban and avoid further trouble. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

concerning as per WP:SUICIDE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if simply having him admit his mistakes and adhere to the ban is enough for an unblock. Do we really need someone around who, at the least bit of adversity, lashes out to everyone and contemplates slitting his wrists? This editor is far more troublesome than a simple case of ban evasion.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Per WP:SUICIDE, a checkuser should be performed to the account for the IP, the IP gotten, a WhoIS search done and the local police called. The police has said they would rather take a million calls and nothing happen, then no one call one time and something actually happen. If this person is in the US and the admin wishes to give me the IP information in private (via email) I will make the police call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you the IP. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe he may be in Greece. (ETA: No, I'm wrong. He's from Greece; he says on his userpage that he is in the US now.) --Moonriddengirl 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I left him a note directing him to one of the national suicide hotlines and have had a checkuser (who turned a CU down) place a note on the checkuser mailing list for second opinion. I will wait and see what happens with that. I would rather be safe than sorry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser came through, IP found, police called, will update when I have more. Should mark as resolved on this section for now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to give a final update on the suicide threat portion of this discussion. As typical in some cases, I never received a callback from the police to know if the person is OK or not. I am hoping he is OK. If I learn anymore, I will be sure to let you all know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the message Bwilkins left him. I was in the process of writing him a similar (but typically overly wordy :)) note when I got the edit conflict with his subsequent. But there's something to what you say, Atlan. The real problem here seems to be not the ban evasion, but an inability to work with others. (I don't recall having encountered this user before today, but I've read over the last ANI discussion.) I don't think this is impossible to overcome, but it requires something more than an acknowledgment of a ban and a willingness to abide by it. Somehow, he needs to drop the battlefield mentality, because that way lies serious disruption. --Moonriddengirl 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am 100% disengaging from the user. Although my original proposal suggested a mentor, it was stated that it would have no obvious purpose so nobody picked up the baton. Regardless, I have kept his talkpage in my watchlist, and tried a few times to give him gentle nudges in the right direction. Based on the posts on my talkpage before his block, rather than being his "angel" I am his "enemy". There's no need for me to do any bear-poking here, and I'm not sure that much can be done to assist this editor. I will of course answer any questions that anyone has from me, but I'll take no further active role with him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block. It's been a long time coming... ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef block with a little reluctance (but a lot less reluctance than in the previous ANI discussion). I feel that I have been as helpful to this user as I can be, and to be honest, my final message on their talk page is a bit sarcastic (suggesting that they create their own wiki, so that they can be an admin like they really want to be). Not too surprisingly, they didn't like that! Those of you who know me will know that that's the closest I've ever come to being rude - but this editor has exhausted my patience. I would be sorry to see this user's useful edits cease, but I feel that this editor cannot work within this community. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Please note that I do not support an infinite block - just until they have shown that they both understand the concerns of the community and have shown that they understand that what they have done is wrong, and shown some remorse for this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support an indef. block I've been watching this through both ANI reports and I hoped the first one resolved the issue. Unfortunately it didn't so this editor needs a force break for awhile to let them think through things more clearly. I also support contacting someone about the threat to his own life. This is just too emotional for this editor at least at this time. I think the editors who tried to reach out and help have tried wonderfully to be patient. Maybe in a month or two the editor maybe willing to listen to all the good advice they have been given. It's sad to come to this, --CrohnieGal 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef block User clearly lacks the social WP:competence to participate in any part of this project other than mainspace, and despite clear warnings he hasn't gotten the message yet. Trying to baby and nurture him has been an unnecessary energy drain on countless editors; we need to just end this now. His mainspace contributions are good, but not enough to justify letting him behave like this. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block per above. Maybe he'll come back and become productive, but he certainly isn't one right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Ugh, I wondered about his edit count: is this followed by this immediately followed by this all within 2 minutes really "productive" or merely a padding of one's edit count? This is his typical pattern of activity - which explains both the vast number of edits and his focus on such edit count on his Userpage. Not as productive as one might think. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Looks like another case of WP:Editcountitis. Then again my case is probably worse than his, although reverts and warnings are probably more productive than what looks like a null edit in the second link you posted. The Thing _{Editor Review} 15:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block *Sigh*... this again? I tried to help you out, but apparently it didn't exactly work out. I'm sorry WGB, but there is a time when even my patience runs out, and this is it. The Thing _{Editor Review} 15:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block It doesn't look as though it is possible to work/reason with this user. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support; while we are losing a great writer on basketball player biographies, we are getting rid of someone who has become way too obsessed with the meta processes and fails to realize that it's no big deal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The guy just wants attention. We cannot accept disruption just because of his attention needs. --Cyclopia 16:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support and I'm fully protecting their talk page per WP:SUICIDE. Let's all move on. Tan | 39 16:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. WGB has had plenty of offers of help and plenty of chances to help himself and, frankly, I feel some editors may be a little too quick to condemn him and request an indef block, but, despite those chances, he's made little effort to cease his disruption to the project. He had a last chance and he blew it. That said, he should be allowed to appeal the block in a bare minimum of 3 months and there should be a review if he indicates willingness to start contributing constructively again. HJMitchell You rang? 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support per Ryulong. I only saw him briefly at his RFA, but his behavior there seemed comparable to what's being described here. It's saddening to see a user leave Misplaced Pages, but perhaps this is for the best. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. per above. User has had more than enough chances. -FASTILY 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think we're done here He is indef blocked, and with the so far unanimous support for that block it seems unlikely any admin will unblock him anytime soon. If he requests unblock in a few months we can re-visit this then. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite block, definitely. Editor is disruptive. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – I noted Time3000's comments on the Error Report function and it was corrected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Editor warned.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards