Misplaced Pages

• Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Obviously, as User:Quinn1 post here, “this is no closer to a resolution than when it started.” and “but you guys are just going in circles here”. Is there anyone, (nonJWtopics' editor preferred), who can propose better solution than Quinn1 wrote here, simply “Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay?” If AuthorityTam and all others involved in JWtopics will trying to assume good faith and not focus on persons, but on content, there will be fewer ANIs needed in future. Perhaps none. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If AuthorityTam ceases the behaviour, the matter will not need to return to ANI. What about the suggestions already made by User:JohnChrysostom (a "nonJWtopics' editor")?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself. I think that the editors involved need to make a more determined effort to work for the betterment of the article instead of seemingly trying to "pick" at one another and "goad" one another into an uncivil response. But that is just a personal observation, and I may be misinterpreting their intent. I will attempt to AGF. Willietell (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's only really been 'involved' to the extent that he's provided comment on the behaviour he's observed. It's unclear why you imagine JohnChrysostom to be 'biased', or what specific bias you imagine him to hold. He's not a JW, if that's what you mean, but then a JW wouldn't be unbiased either. He identifies on Misplaced Pages as a Christian, eliminating any supposed 'atheist' bias; I've seen no indication that he's a former JW, or that he has had any particular involvement with JWs. It seems that your definition of 'unbiased' is 'agrees with you'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm completely uninvolved (was browsing the AN/I threads for interest). I have no connection to the JW, and have never that I remember edited a JW-related article (if I did, it probably was a bio of a JW who happened to be in my own areas of interest). I propose an interaction ban between the two editors, a warning to both on the subject of neutrality in JW-related articles, a warning to both about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a warning especially to AuthorityTam about bad-faith accusations of bias based on another editor's perceived religion. The warnings should include an explicit mention of sanctions if behavior does not improve. - Jorgath (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your impartial insight. I started official propose as you suggested. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had made my position clear, but it seems Jeffro77 (talk) doesn't quite understand my clearly stated position, thus I will state it briefly again, just for clarification "User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself." Notice that this did not require an opinion about who he chooses to agree with or how much involvement he has had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, but simply his participation in discussions involving the three editors in question as well as myself. If I can be of assistance in making my position any clearer in the future, please continue to let me know. Additionally, I don't feel that any harsher sanctions should be applied to AT than to any of the other two editors in question, because there are no innocent victims here. Willietell (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand your position. I just don't agree with you. But it hardly matters because another entirely uninvolved party just responded above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the last ANI, AuthorityTam is 'laying low' rather than acknowledging his part in causing problems and ceasing the behaviour. If, when he returns, he simply ceases the behaviour, it may not be necessary to return here. However, if no action is taken and the behaviour continues, the issue will be raised here again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No. AuthorityTam partially quoted, without regard to context, a conditional statement I made three days later, in response to a suggestion by another editor. No such mention of 'banning' had been made at the time AuthorityTam made the claim. The actual sentence, in response to a suggestion by JohnChrysostom, that AuthorityTam partially quoted was "If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order." Support of the suggestion was also explicitly marked "Provisional".--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Interaction ban propose (with all consequences Jorgath offered)

Support I support this idea, but I think it should not be permanent. I suggest tentatively for 3 weeks. If next conflicts will continue after end, it should be applied again for longer period. But certainly not forever. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - At the last ANI, AuthorityTam claimed that his disingenuous comments about other editors do not constitute 'interaction', and he made the claim that—while making such accusations—he was actually 'avoiding' contact with those same editors. AuthorityTam would therefore need to be told explicitly what any 'interaction ban' would include.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban means you don't talk to the other user, you don't talk about the other user, you don't comment if someone brings up the other user's name, and you stay away from editing the same articles just to be safe. In short, you behave on-wiki as if they and the articles they work on do not exist. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Question: Do you think is it appropriate to apply it on BlackCab? I suppose that likely yes, because many comments were towards BlackCab, perhaps even more than on Jeffro77. BlackCab also participated in discussion against AT. Since the start of 'first' ANI, it was 3-person dispute. I didn't participate on those previous disputes. Some editors could still think that 'tag-team' and 'JW watchdogs' and other similar expressions are corresponding to reality at Misplaced Pages. However, there are no innocent editors on each side. Please comment. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support as initial proposer. I didn't name a length above, but considering the apparent hostility I would say 6 weeks would be more appropriate for the initial ban. I also support formal warnings that continued behavior of this sort might also lead to topic bans, but no topic bans yet. - Jorgath (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, the topic need a more balanced view, and AuthorityTam is an important contributor with unique knowledges about the topic and the ability to give the topics discussion a balance. This proposal is strongly favouring the most active users, as it blocks out opinions and contributions from AuthorityTam, as I consider less active than some of the other users mentioned. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported contains sanctions and notifications of 'both sides'. Thus I don't understand why this could be bad for articles or for other editors. Simply those 2 or 3 persons will neither edit JWarticles, nor talking about other user names etc. (see Baseball Bugs contrib here). I think other editors can substitute them for some time and it cool down emotions amongst editors. I realized similar valuation like observed JohnChrysostom, who wrote here that some action have to be taken at all cost. Otherwise this dispute will come back continuously many times again with no result. In ictu Oculi and Quinn1 observed it similarly. There is very likely WP:Boomerang on AT oposers' side. I am not against AuthorityTam. I simply acknowledge that some revision between involved editors is absolutely needed or comes back here soon. I can imagine that some spontaneous self-censorship/self-control of other JWtopics editors have to be applied, each on himself (=Others have to be silent, no comments on account of those restricted, during interaction ban of those 2 or 3 editors). I hope that other JWtopics editors could cooperate normally or better after end of restrictions and this would help overall ambience amongst editors. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot speak for BlackCab (who has been the target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour more often than me). But as far as I'm concerned, all that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs; if he is able to modify his behaviour, there should be no problem with him continuing to contribute to JW-related articles. If he is unable to alter his behaviour, he needs to cease interacting with editors he is unable to work with. The fact of the matter is that after disappearing during the last ANI, upon returning AuthorityTam couldn't help himself for even half an hour before continuing to impugn another editor (namely, me) at article Talk. Jorgath's suggestion is ambiguous about who other than AuthorityTam might be included in any sanctions. Of course, I have no problem with not interacting with AuthorityTam if he abides by any imposed interaction ban.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, when I said "both" in my proposal, I meant you (Jeffro) and AuthorityTam. - Jorgath (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any interaction ban imposed on AuthorityTam would need to include BlackCab, who has been the primary target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour.

The terms of any such interaction ban would also need to be made clear, and would ideally not prevent discussion of article content. As I stated at the last ANI: "When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I am going to have to oppose at this time unless someone says something to convince me otherwise, because I don't really see anything particularly egregious in ATam's comment. I see only an editor defending himself against what he feels is a false accusation of being a liar and providing evidence he feels supports this. In a way I can see his point of view, that being, if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place? Later when the ban was proposed, both Blackcab and Jeffro77 supported it, whether conditionally or not, they supported it. I therefore see nothing sinister about ATam's posting those edits as evidence in his defense. That being the case, at this point, exactly what has he done that deserves some form of sanction? I see nothing! Who on this board would not like to provide evidence to the contrary if someone called you a liar? Usually, in such a circumstance, I don't justify such an accusation with a reply, but I am not like most people. Most people will reply, just like ATam did, with what they feel is supporting evidence. I personally think that calling a fellow editor a liar, especially when evidence can be provided to the contrary, borders on incivility, and a particular editor seems to have adopted this as his favorite phrase, using such an accusation against a number of editors. Perhaps, this incivility also needs to be addressed here. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to stir the pot. I very clearly indicated that I would only support a topic ban as a last resort (though it should be noted that the action you are opposing is not a topic ban), and I only made that provisional statement days after AuthorityTam made the dishonest claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell asks, "if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place?" I have already been fairly unambiguous about the result I would prefer.

• April 2: "It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah "—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Misplaced Pages', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise."
• April 8: "The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content."
• April 30: "It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages."
• May 1: "I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs"
• May 2: "The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs."
• May 6: "All that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs."

I think it would be expecting a bit much for an apology from AuthorityTam, but what I have repeatedly and unambiguously requested is that he cease his improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, should be for all 3 - an "interaction ban" would have to cover BlackCab as well as Jeffro77 and Authority Tam. Also difficult to see how an "interaction ban" can work when the only topic areas 2 of the 3 editors edit are in JW-space anyway. How can the three editors continue editing the same controversial article together and not "interact"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As I stated earlier, and as suggested by In ictu oculi above, it's unclear how an interaction ban would work while still working on articles related to the JW WikiProject. Despite claims by a couple of editors at the last ANI that AuthorityTam often has to 'defend' himself in a '2 against 1' situation, there are currently 2 regular non-JW editors and 5 regular pro-JW editors (AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Faktnevi and Willietell, some of whom explicitly identify as JWs) involved with the JW project. Without regular editors representing a non-JW view, articles would rapidly be affected by bias. If the terms of any interaction ban were to relate to editors not referring to other editors but not preclude content-related discussion (which I have suggested from the outset), I would Support. However, if a proposed interaction ban implicitly amounts to a topic ban for the only regular non-JW editors, then I would Oppose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Jeffro77 makes several good points here. I have a feeling that, much as most of us may not like this, that maybe WP:ARBCOM should be consulted. It seems to me that discretionary sanctions on any disruptive edits by any individual is probably the best way to go here, and ArbCom is really the only place that such sanctions can be enacted. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but I agree. I'd have preferred it if this could be resolved without going that far, mostly so that we could go to them if the problem continued. - Jorgath (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my initial proposal of this same measure in the previous AN/I, for a limited time (no more than thirty days). If the antagonism continues, or if the terms of the interaction ban are repeatedly broken, I believe a thirty-day topic ban or short (fourteen days) outright block is in order, followed by standard escalating sanctions. Note that my support changes to oppose pursuant to Jeffro77's caveat speaking of a practical topic ban for non-Bible Student editors of JW articles. St John Chrysostom _τω 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Hey guys, we're going in circles again!!
• Jeffro77 lied about me. I clearly stated many times that I am not member of Wikiproject JW, nor would be again. I was formerly member of the project, including completely Misplaced Pages (see my user page). Last year I was JWtopics completely indifferent! I started to edit there about 14 days ago when I realized what happened during time I was silent. I clearly stated that I am impartial in the matter. Since last year I gained deeper insight in many matters. Though I can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor. From the start I am trying to serve as mediator, because I don't think that unbiased means always JW-viewpoint even though sometimes it is the case. JW editors could trust me and non-JW editors could at least admit that I was not involved with disputes in which I try to mediate. Hence, in fact I am impartial.
• As I read from Jeffro77' and In ictu oculi' latest comments, there is a consensus that interaction ban should include BlackCab as well. I asked Baseball Bugs' on his viewpoint in this matter. (because he is absolutely impartial and I want not taking any sides).
• I also said that nobody here is completely innocent. Everyone should learn what WP:Civil and WP:AGF really! means. Bad faith accusations are still frequent as I read terrible discussion in JW article talk page yesterday (Grrahnbahr and Jeffro). I suggest that all current members should not to have a right to poll here (oppose/support etc.), because is evident that Jeffro taking sides and JW editors taking the other sides. (not surprising, it is very common as I am knowledgeable well of the ambience amongst JWtopics editors). So no result can be achieved in any case.

--FaktneviM (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you're "a member of Wikiproject JW" ('membership' of any WikiProject is generally informal anyway); I said you've been a recent regular editor of JW-related articles. If you are not a JW, I might have mixed you up with Fazilfazil, and if that's the case, I apologise.

I don't recall a "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr, and I've actually found him to be one of the more reasonable JW editors to work with. This doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but I'm not aware of any issues about conduct between Grrahnbahr and me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, I see that FaktneviM is the editor from last year who avoided discussion of his conduct at ANI by claiming his 'right to vanish' after he was reported by User:Danjel. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass (neither of the incidents were raised by me).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past, you've called me a "fanatic non-believer", and said I'm "not so clever, as ", but "not fully stupid as well". You have also suggested in the past that you are a JW. If you're not a JW, just what did you mean by linking the JW's translation of 2 Cor 6:14-18 and then saying that scripture meant "It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that"?

You've previously claimed that my User page (which is and was composed almost entirely of User Boxes) is "preaching" and "propagandistic and hatred" and "hatred and pride ... propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance" (my user page at the time is here).

You've also previously stated (incorrectly) that AuthorityTam has lied about you.

You seem to have suggested here that you consider the term "JW editor" to be a "slang idiom"; in case there is any confusion, the term "JW editor" is intended to mean a Misplaced Pages editor who is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your past behaviour, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you to claim that you're an 'impartial mediator'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that AuthorityTam is aware of the kind of inappropriate remarks he makes, because when he thought he'd offended a JW editor (specifically, FaktneviM) for a very minor misunderstanding (which actually was not even AuthorityTam's fault), he provided an elaborate apology, stating "I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing" (formatting from original). If AuthorityTam applied this kind of contriteness when offending editors he considers to be former JWs, we would not be at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about personal attack and POV civil pushing from Jeffro. He responded non-logically and he assumed bad faith. He didn't consider my last edit at all. It is said that I remember it is very common. ((If someone other read my contributions here on this ANI and whatever else from past few months, could see what I have in mind. I just want to help here. I am ready to go away from Misplaced Pages again after solving this ANI. In some JW talk discussions I simply suggested everything what I observed after reading many last year edits when I was not involved. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"POV civil pushing"?? You claimed that I lied about you. I didn't. I did not say you were a member of the JW WikiProject.

When you said that you "can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor", then you either ceased being a member since last year, or you lied when you said you were a member, or you lied when you said you're not. In any case, I did not lie about you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you could indicate what you consider to be the "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This may be a side point, and a little off topic. But I think of all the editors mentioned, I am the only one who I personally have noticed publicly stating they they are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have a problem being referred to as a JW editor, but I am not everyone and others might. Willietell (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member. I have already provided links where FaktneviM said he was a member. I was going from memory for the other 2, and if I confused them with other editors, I apologise. In any case, they hold pro-JW positions in discussions, which was the main point of the context of my comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• . Well. There is no strict definition of being "member of Jehovah's Witnesses". Someone could consider to be a member when is closely involved with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when has Bible study with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Unbabtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Babtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when simply attenting their meetings without any other close affiliation. Because definition of "member" is not objective criterium, but subjectively based (aka feelings), I don't prefer to call myself "proJW editor" nor "JW editor", because both is prejudicaly defined. It depends only on encyclopaedic content and such division is not useful, becuase it is prejudice (by wrongly! so called "nonJW editors") ((=in fact "apostates" ... what is also prejudice) to expect that "members of whatever!" can't have balanced objective view in some matter. Moreover, it is personal privacy of each one and Misplaced Pages is not chat with person which do not exist. I can presume that Jeffro77 doesn't exist, because I never saw him. Such person is perhaps only imaginary and my messages are not read and I waste my time in Misplaced Pages what is also only imaganary. Due these circumstances I prefer to be "JW-sympatehetic+knowledgable" or even "JW-knowledgable" only. I didn't say that I am not Jehovah's witness. I only stated that I am not "JW editor" nor "member of WikiP JW". I said that I am impartial in case of this ANI, because I was inactive uninvolved editor in times when "AT vs BC,JF issue" happened.
• . . I had in mind discussion of Jeffro77 and Grrahnbahr, where Grrahnbahr accused Jeffro to being in a "Trinity" with BlackCab and John Chrysostom. I mentioned this, because it is a evidence of continuing tension amongst JW Project members. Due of that it seems logical to enforce my suggestion in 4th paragraph of first contrib in ===Comments=== starting with words "I also said that nobody" (4th paragraph). It is worth to mention that I agreed with observation of John Chrysostom, as well as all really impartial editors here. I think that this is evidence I am trying to be really impartial as well and no taking any sides in this ANI. See "This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported...." for that contrib where I agree with John Chrysostom's observation. I also drew JCH minds from User_talk:JohnChrysostom#AuthorityTam and several other places, where John Chrysostom noted his position and thoughts on JW project.
• Summary again: Personally, I don't see any utility of Jeffro77' trying to discredit me on the basis of very old edits. His comments adds nothing to achieving solution (aka finally) and could be seen as a way to avoid his share on restrictions as well and personally intended comments like disruptive here. I still trying to assume AGF from all, but it is evident, as I said, in first contrib in ===Comments=== that members of wikiproject JW taking sides.
• --FaktneviM (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that I lied. I didn't. Semantics aside, your edits indicate that you're a 'proJW' editor whether or not you're a member of the religion (and you have indicated in the past that you are in the edits already indicated). I have also already indicated the manner in which such membership is relevant here, and that it does not automatically mean that an editor cannot be objective. Additionally, "nonJW" is not the same thing as "apostate" (neither the normal definition of the word nor the more narrow sense attributed by JWs). And I can assure you that I am not imaginary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas and User:Anupam

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

I have read this debate. The following facts have been clearly established:

• Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in problematic conduct
• This includes plagiarism, POV-pushing and edit-warring
• There is evidence of canvassing in respect of this discussion

The overall conclusion is that Anupam is attempting to push Misplaced Pages content in the direction of sympathy with his POV, and is supported in this by others who share that POV.

My reading of the consensus from this debate is as follows:

1. Anupam is placed on a final warning with respect to plagiarism. Any further examples of plagiarism will result in an immediate and lengthy ban. No further warnings need be issued, any administrator noting plagiarised content inserted by Anupam from this date may block immediately for a period at their discretion but probably between one and twelve months, which block would be considered a community ban per the consensus here, so that any appeal would be to WP:BASC.
2. Anupam is placed on 1RR parole for 6 months.
3. Anupam may be topic banned by any uninvolved administrator from any article where he appears to be violating WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). No further warning is necessary. Initial topic bans should be of short duration but escalating durations in case of second or subsequent issues would be appropriate.

I would suggest that if the above do not yield the required improvement in Anupam's behaviour, the matter should be remitted to Arbcom, who have the patience to wade through the word-storm and pick apart genuine input from votestacking, canvassed !votes and the like.

I believe this is at the light end of what consensus supports, in reflection of the fact that Anupam has been here a long time with a clean block record.

I will inform Anupam. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing here to inform the reviewing administrator of a threat made against me here by Viriditas (talk · contribs). This individual has followed me to several articles in the last few months where he has not been an editor, including Big Bang, as well as recently Effects of cannabis. In addition, this individual has unfairly placed warnings on my talk page, stating that I have "plagiarised" material (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two), despite the fact that I always provide a source for my additions. User:Viriditas has been warned by other editors that his accusations are incorrect, but he still persists. In addition, the individual in question stated that I improperly used the rollback feature, despite the fact that I reverted my use of rollback because I accidentally clicked the rollback button and could not stop the rollback in time (I was informed that rollback is to be only used for vandalism on 22 April). I understand that User:Viriditas might be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but I think it is in the best interest of both of us that an interaction ban be set between us. I have tried several times to discuss issues with this user nicely but he is always hostile to me in his comments and replies. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and consider my request. Best wishes, Anupam 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of that is true, Anupam. I have not followed you anywhere; if anything, your recent edits to the cannabis topic was a form of baiting on your part, as I was active on the talk page right before you showed up to disrupt the article with the same plagiarism you were previously warned about in regards to the Big Bang related set of articles. In other words, you were hounding and baiting me with more of the same policy violating edits, and I think you deserve a long block for it. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an attempt by Anupam to "head 'em off at the pass", as Viriditas notified Anupam that he would be filing an ANI report less than half an hour prior to Anupam's report: aprock (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam mentions in his comment to which Viriditas replies that he was planning on seeking an interaction ban and I'm guessing that he just wanted to deal with the situation and so decided to escalate. I don't think he is the type of editor who thinks in terms of "heading them off at the pass." I've disagreed with Anupam a lot, actually I can't think of a time where I agreed, but one thing I can say about him is that he has always maintained civility and acted in good faith. I would be surprised if it was different here. Not commenting on the case in general, just wanted to throw this in. SÆdon 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam pulled the exact same stunt against me: I notify: 06:28, 27 September 2011, he preemptively files 07:12, 27 September 2011. Given his history of disruptive editing, there is little reason to assume good faith here. aprock (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months. And V has been warned. Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? Before Viriditas can be blocked, there would have to be a showing that Anupam's enjoyment of editing has been adversely affected. While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked. In the meantime we should move to put in place a I-ban.– Lionel 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months."'

• Hardly : Viriditas↔Anupam.

"And V has been warned."

• By? Diff?

"Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? ... While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked."

• Try reading this part of WP:HOUND again "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (i.e. just to be a dick.)

With all due respect Counselor, this sounds a lot like you jumping to Anupam's defense with little or no supporting policy or evidence (and not for the first time Anupam↔Lionelt). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Anupam has managed to escape being blocked with their combative style of editing and their filing ANI grievances that never come to anything. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(I wanted to post this on Anupam's page rather than here, but he removed the thread there). I can't speak to the mutual charges of hounding (in particular, I've been unable to figure out what incident "I commented on the talk page and then you showed up to edit" was meant to refer to). About the plagiarism issue: first, I must note that in the cited instance of Gandalf61's objections against Viriditas' earlier warnings I'm with Viriditas. Plagiarism applies not just to the appropriation of ideas and thoughts, but also to the appropriation of their expression. When somebody literally copies a substantial piece of text and then adds a footnote to the source, the footnote alone only tells the reader that the facts are taken from that source, but not that the literal expression is taken from it too. Thus, the use of the literal expression remains unattributed and hence may constitute plagiarism. Applying this to the "cannabis" edits at question here , we have a borderline case: taking over a literal passage without marking it as a quotation, adding a footnote, and then repeating the original literal text as an explicit quote inside the footnote, may be seen as narrowly escaping the plagiarism charge. It is, however, very poor academic writing. What's so difficult about writing a proper paraphrase instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What is difficult about it, is that Anupam refuses to do it. He is a serial plagiarizer. Simply look at his most recent contributions to Conservapedia. They are all copy and paste jobs taken directly from books, without any quotations or attributions.Here is a recent edit where he plagiarized p. 70 in Kinnear 2011. He continues to do this on Misplaced Pages after being asked to stop. I don't see this as "borderline", it is his primary editing style and he refuses to stop. How many contributions has he made to Misplaced Pages that consist of nothing but copy and paste jobs without quotes or attribution? Yes, he adds citations, but the content is not his own nor clearly marked as that of another author. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a previous incident with Anupam in mid-February, which led to the proposal of a topic ban at WP:AN (for Anupam and Lionelt, commenting above). That report does not seem to have been archived properly, so here is a historic link. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How has anupam avoided a block for their long-term civil pov-pushing? (And apparent sockpuppetry last year) bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner, you have accused me of sockpuppetry two times for two different users (one being an SPA, and another being an administrator) and yet, despite me and administrator User:Master of Puppets encouraging you to pursue WP:SPI, you have never done so. I would highly appreciate if you could please stop making baseless accusations when you have not even pursued the proper venue for your claims. Once again, please do not try to frame me; if you have legitimate concerns, pursue them at the proper department. I will provide you with a quote that might help you understand why I feel so hurt when you speak this way of me: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” ~Warren Buffet I hope you understand my concerns. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we please deal with your accusations against me, first? You say I followed you to several articles, most recently effects of cannabis. Do you have any evidence? Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, viriditas, for distracting from the current problem. I agree that it should be dealt with. However, pre-emptive attack is nothing new here.

In response to anupam: I posted a very large collection of deeply suspicious diffs surrounding the Militant Atheism article. They were removed repeatedly. Other dissent with anupam's position was also shut down (although thankfully the community has now prevailed and the awful pov-pushing content has been removed). At that time, I was quite convinced that if I raised an SPI, that too would be shut down promptly; and I was very stressed due to the pov-pushing and the messages I was getting, so I didn't push the point any further. Would you like me to present the evidence again here? it seems like an appropriate venue. I'd be happy to offer a big stack of diffs for which sockpuppetry is the only sane explanation. Of course, if you could offer some alternative explanation, that would be welcome too. Calling them baseless accusations is just another lie; just another pre-emptive attack against somebody who has evidence of long-term problematic editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, have you looked closely at the diffs to see if the content was copied directly from cited sources without quotes or attribution? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; there does seem to be very liberal copying of text. (Sorry for the derail; my main concern was about pov-pushing, and sock-puppetry and canvassing to further that pov-pushing rather than the plagiarism per se) bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another issue: even after the problem was pointed out to him earlier in March, Anupam is continuing to import non-neutral, polemical Conservapedia content into Misplaced Pages in extremely sneaky ways. For example, on April 11, Anupam copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article and added it to Misplaced Pages's article on Religion. This content was plagiarized from the Mayo Clinic without any inline quotes or attribution. On the same day, he again copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article, but this time rewrote it, and added it to the Misplaced Pages article on Suicide. Along with the previously mentioned problems with copying and pasting unquoted and unattributed material, the problem of Anupam continuing to add Conservapedia content to Misplaced Pages has not yet been addressed. The pattern that I've observed over several months appears to be obvious. When Anupam copies over Conservapedia content to a single article on Misplaced Pages, it generally gets deleted and his edits are reverted. However, he has discovered a way around this problem. Instead of copying over the entire article, what he has been doing instead is copying over small sentences and paragraphs, and then distributing (merging) Conservapedia's content to multiple articles so as not to draw any attention. In this way, the content which would otherwise not be appropriate for Misplaced Pages on a single article or topic is preserved by placing it in many different articles and topics in smaller chunks so as not to attract attention, and amounts to a sneaky method of proselytizing. This is what he did when he added off-topic material about "atheism and the suppression of science" from Conservapedia to Misplaced Pages. It was deleted, but Anupam salvaged it when nobody was looking by adding it in small chunks to religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• More recent plagiarism in creation and evolution in public education in the United States. Anupam writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory." The source (Discovery Institute) writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation protecting the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory." Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's compelling evidence in this thread that Anupam has problems with plagiarism/copyright violation and if this doesn't stop immediately he should be blocked. Because of his plagiarism, and because of the POV-pushing that Viriditas documents above, I find the charges of stalking unpersuasive—Anupam clearly needs to be monitored, and any problematic edits he made need to be ameliorated or eliminated. So if Viriditas has been checking regularly on Anupam's edits, that's a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that Anupam is either unaware of or unwilling to respect the differences in goals and standards between Misplaced Pages and Conservapedia. Much of his editing gives the impression of searching for increasingly roundabout ways to import Conservapedia content onto Misplaced Pages.

His use of sources also seems ideologically driven in the extreme; the content about suicide and atheism is a classic illustration. The cited source states that "atheist" countries are "the healthiest and wealthiest nations on Earth", and that a country's level of atheism is correlated with higher development, lower infant mortality, less poverty, fewer homicides, and greater gender equality. The only metric by which atheist countries fare worse than "religious" countries is suicide rate. The authors conclude:

In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high levels of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on Earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy.

How does Anupam use that source? By going to suicide and prominently linking it to atheism. Note that while the source clearly correlates atheism with societal health, Anupam cherry-picks the one isolated factoid which correlates atheism with societal dysfunction and presents it in isolation. Note the cherry-picked quote in the footnote.

That's textbook: he's mining these sources to advance his personal viewpoint, rather than respecting the actual content and context of the source and presenting it appropriately. For another example of questionable use of sources, see this thread, where I presented my concerns in table form. Because Anupam is unfailingly civil, I doubt that his ideologically driven editing or questionable use of sources will ever result in sanctions. Certainly his civility has so far trumped all content-related concerns, as is typically the case here, but still. MastCell  16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• We need much better tools to combat this exact kind of intellectually dishonest but civil pov pushing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Civil (or at least sub-block level uncivil) pov pushing seems to be the most pressing problem of wiki governance. a13ean (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand quite well the difference between the standards in Conservapedia and Misplaced Pages, the former favouring a conservative point of view in its articles, and the latter favouring a neutral point of view. The sources I place in articles are academic sources and I always provide the original quotation upon which I base my writing. If one looks at the talk page on the Religion article, one can note that there are comments stating that the article seems to focus on the criticism of religion; adding a statement on the positive health benefits of religion, supported by a reference from the Mayo Clinic, is not POV pushing, it is adding valuable information to the article. Contrary to what User:Viriditas stated, I did attribute the quotation and even placed the quote parameter around the information I added (verify). Similarly, with the study on atheism, the source is from the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and it states:

Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

This is the information that I inserted in the article? I am not sure why that is POV pushing? User:MastCell, I understand that there were other conclusions about atheism in that reference but why are they relevant to an article on Suicide? I would appreciate if you pleased assumed good faith here. Thanks, Anupam 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator User:Akhilleus, thank your for your comments here. I see that you have written that you do see problems with plagiarism in my work at Misplaced Pages. I want to take the time to humbly apologize before you and others here, including User:Viriditas, for doing so. I stand corrected and am sorry for my actions. This was never my intention, as I only desired to make a summary of the references I used, in order to meet WP:V. I never realized that my work constituted plagiarism. I firmly commit to using my quotation parameters and paraphrasing the content more than I have before. In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Misplaced Pages for a while. I hope you all have a nice day. With regards, Anupam 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In this edit Anupam clearly demonstrates an inability to see how his editing of the Suicide article represents cherry picking. While Anupam claims to understand that Misplaced Pages is meant to be a neutral source of information, his inability to recognize his own POV pushing is very problematic. While he may be editing in good faith in an attempt to edit neutrally, this clearly demonstrates that he is not capable of doing such. Given that he cannot even recognize his disruptive editing, apologies are not going to solve the problem. Given how long this disruptive editing has been going on, with no improvement despite dozens of apologies, I think it's time to reflect on this editors role in the project. aprock (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the apology is very polite, but fails to address the important issue of biased editing. Given that this user has been here since 2006 and has a history of problematic editing (as has been shown in this thread), I'm not optimistic that he's going to alter his ways now. Perhaps we should discuss a topic ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. Every one of my edits uses a reliable source and contains verifiable information. If there is ever a content dispute, I discuss the issue on the talk page and open up an RfC to gain input from the community. I always accept the decision of the community no matter what. I was very sincere in my apology and I do not think this will be necessary. It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest, especially when I have been polite and willing to discuss my contributions. I would appreciate if you could please reconsider your comment. I would highly appreciate it. With regards, Anupam 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Using a reliable source is not enough when you use it to say the opposite of what is clearly the authors intention when read in context. Selectively quoting information in the way you have done is intellectually dishonest whether or not it is done on purpose. You must understand that if you wish to edit neutrally. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. Having read through this thread and gone over all the diffs I see we have a real problem here. The plagiarism is obviously a major issue, but now that we know about it we can simply enforce Anupam's future avoidance of plagiarism with escalating blocks. The wider issue is the civil POV-pushing. I guess we could consider a topic-ban, but the major problem I see with this is selecting a topic. Religion? Science? Topics that would conventionally be of interest to someone who edits Conservapedia? I guess the latter, but good luck defining it. We could community ban, and I wouldn't be unhappy with such at outcome at all, but it seems a shade harsh right now and I don't think it would get consensus anyway ATM.

• Perhaps some kind of probation and custom-tailored editing restriction? I guess we could form some kind of collective mentorship agreement, whereby a group of sysops get together to monitor Anupam, have the authority to impose blocks/bans/further restrictions on him, and who he can come to for advice? I guess the question with this is whether we'll get enough out of it to be worth the time.

• The other problem is we're not quite sure whether or not he has been socking and generally editing in bad faith. If he has been then we should probably default to community ban right now. Perhaps bobrayner could post the diffs and we can have a look and try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, or send them off for checkuser. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Moreschi, I would be happy to have a group of administrators monitor me and let me know if I have problems with my edits. Once again, any time there has ever been a dispute, I take the time to discuss it with others, and start and RfC to gain wider input. I always accept community consensus on the issue. I would be glad to work with a group of sysops on articles. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• From recent experience on Atheism it is apparent he is a (mostly) civil POV pusher. He tried to insert a cherry picked single analysis (it wasn't actually a study) which suited his POV to try and offset a meta-analysis of no less than 43 studies, 39 of which favoured the opposite conclusion (on religion and intelligence correlations). (There are many more in the literature too) Promptly another editor reverted the addition, asking him to take it to the talk page. Anupam reverted this editor twice: even though being asked to specifically gain consensus. Then user User:Justice007 jumped in to Anupam's rescue with two more reverts with the comment of "What is than WP:NPOV ??." . (I note that Justice007 made no constructive comments beyond being borderline incoherent: ). Even though it was obvious that a single study had no due weight beside a meta-analysis. Anupam tried to justify including an uncited paper by citing, amongst others, the daily mail and "Christian Post", I think it's clear to any[REDACTED] editor that these won't help give it due weight. Anupam also hid the daily mail behind a link naming it as "The Telegraph": . Here is the discussion: Talk:Atheism#Study. After only 8 and a half hours after his first comment he started an RfC (aren't RfC's meant to be discussed before being started?); this seems extremely premature to me in any discussion. During the RfC Anupam appeared to have decided that a particular adminstrator would close the RfC although it seems he was not aware of this promise: User_talk:Kuru#RfC_at_Atheism. Anupam also appears to not have grasped basic guidelines and policies, when i quoted WP:N verbatim , he replied with "I respect your opinion, but disagree with it" . I find it very hard to believe that an editor with 15 thousand edits confuses notability with due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created numerous articles here on Misplaced Pages and have helped many editors out, in addition to improving the quality of several articles here. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation of my desire to discuss with other editors and conduct an RfC to gain input from the community. For example, stating that I intentionally labelled a Daily Mail article as an article from The Telegraph, despite the fact that I thanked User:IRWolfie for pointing out the error, is wrong and a clear attempt to defame me. I have been polite and respectful to everyone and am hurt by the lack of compassion and understanding here. If you or any of the others start a process to "topic ban" me, I would rather quit editing Misplaced Pages and retire instead. So please let me know if you follow through and I will be gone. Thanks, Anupam 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I said you were a civil POV pusher (the mostly was for the edit warring). Your thanks is fully consistent with being a civil POV pusher. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest moving toward starting up a topic ban discussion on AN. There seems to be some consensus that your editing has been disruptive and tendentious, both from this discussion and earlier ones. I have to concur, but think that it is no longer productive to discuss the matter here on ANI instead of discussing an actual topic ban on AN. In fact, the only thing holding me back is that there is no clear picture of what your topic ban should entail. I'm thinking an indefinite ban on all topics related to religion/atheism and controversial social and political issues, very broadly construed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think we can take Anupam's apology at face value. e.g. in the Kashmir article he had copy-pasted whole scale from sources and was informed of this issue on July 7 2011 when the content was removed (July 7). He did not respond to the warning, instead, he goes in adds it back to the article after a month (Aug 7). After a month, quite obviously copyvio cleaners aren't watching the article as they deal with way too many, so this one has now stood within the article until now. This is highly irresponsible behavior from someone and these sugar laced apologies do not justify it. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhai Sahib, the reason I restored the content was because I did not copy directly from the references. I attempted to put it into my own words so I was surprised when it was removed, which is why I restored it when I saw that it was gone. I do not remember even seeing the warning in the first place (my talk page has 384 threads on it). I am sincere when I tell you that I did not mean to do anything wrong. I think the problem here is that I need to do a much better job of putting things into my own words and I am willing to work on this. I guess that the information I added to the Kashmir article should have been put into my own words better, even though I did try to paraphrase the content. Instead of topic banning me, I would commit to working with a group of administrators who could monitor my edits and correct me when I am wrong. I would really appreciate a another chance User:SpacemanSpiff. I left a comment below that you might be interested in reading. Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam 23:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Threats to quit aren't constructive either, and more importantly aren't binding. If a topic ban is to be initiated then that should happen regardless of whether Anupam sticks a {{retired}} up this week or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to dig this up again, but claims that anupam made in this thread are totally incompatible with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, in your opinion, does this look like the work of a fanatical hobbyist with too much time on his hands, or a paid editor working on behalf of a special interest group? I ask, because when one talks about job losses and unemployment, the word "devastating" is used quite a bit. Up above, Anupum said, "It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest..." I found that wording very unusual, as in normal discourse, the use of that word is associated with the loss of one's paid profession. I also find much of Anupam's so-called civility to be more artificial than natural in tone. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to guess whether this kind of editing is driven by personal interest or pay. That's a whole new can of worms and - though I respect you as an editor - I think it could distract from the main problem; bad editing is bad editing, regardless of what motivates it. Civility of long-term problematic editors could be viewed simply as an evolutionary artefact; if an editor pov-pushes and is rude/abrasive, they are strongly selected against in our current ecosystem, whilst somebody who pov-pushes and says "please" and "thankyou" is much more likely to survive each AN/I thread unscathed. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not go down this road. Viriditas' speculation about things being "devastating" is less than convincing. Viriditas, please don't sideline the discussion with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I think speculating on whether or not an editor is paid is pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a lot of coincidences. Well, I've been through the diffs Bob posted and I'm fairly well convinced that Turnalso is a sock/meatpuppet of Anupam, but what do others think on this one? Bob, you mentioned other SPA accounts - would you mind listing them here? Don't bother doing diff-by-diff analysis for these if you have better things to be doing, we can probably work through them ourselves. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Anupum has definitely been prone to plagiarism and at the very least of inadequate or misleading sourcing. I've pulled him up on it several times in the last couple of years (eg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_3#Quoted_material_not_in_quote_marks), so his claim here that he "didn't realise" is not credible. I can't speak to the other allegations. --143.52.87.123 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have participated in some RfCs initiated by Anupam, and as far as I saw, he behaved the way he claims, contributing in a civil manner to discussions, and not contesting their outcome. There were obviously disagreements during these discussions, but this happens in most disputes requiring a RfC. While I do not deny that Anupam has done some obvious mistakes previously, I nonetheless think there has been too much bad faith assumed about his actions, and a permanent topic ban looks far too harsh in my opinion, especially for someone who contributed on many articles, as well as writting new ones. I think Moreschi's suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, could be a more constructive solution. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cody7777777 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Cody7777777, did somebody tell you to come here? Were you emailed or was there a message on another site somewhere? After all the concerns about canvassing, I'm surprised to see an editor come to this thread to defend anupam despite being semi-retired, with no talkpage notification, and having edited eight articles in the last six months. bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reached this discussion through Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard#User_attrition (that page is on my watchlist), which led me to User_talk:Anupam#Notice (where I saw the link to this discussion). Since I have observed Anupam's behaviour during these RfCs, I thought could comment here about them. I do not see anything wrong with that. And to be honest, I would also have been curious to know how some other users (who support Anupam's banning) have reached this discussion. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A few of his group are great contributers elsewhere, which makes sock-puppetry unlikely. We could file an SPI, but I also don't think Anupam is careless enough to have used multiple accounts from one IP. I think this is a case of meatpuppetry; users are being recruited either through email, personal contact, or a private forum. This behavior is disruptive for numerous reasons, including the often unmentioned issue of editor retention. Anupam has driven me away from numerous areas of the project very directly, and decreased my editing and motiviation to continue editing anywhere. I'm sure I'm not alone. Allowing this behavior to continue drives away productive, actually collaborative editors. That he says "Hope that helps", apologizes without understanding the issues or changing his behavior, threatens to retire to avoid sanctions, or what-have-you, should in no way be taken into account when determining if sanctions should be imposed. I'd like to see this handled, finally... after all the ANI threads, drama and disruption, we need to deal with this and move on. Can someone post a formal request for sanctions (whatever those may be) here or at AN? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to assume any bad faith, but in my opinion this is beginning to look like some sort of witch hunt. Regardless, what you want to believe I have seen his RfCs at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy.

Regarding the "Militant Atheism" article, I had actually edited on that article's talk page as early as february 2010, before Anupam even started to edit on it.

Most of my interaction with Anupam began during the 2011 "Militant Atheism" debates, where we shared similar views (but as I already said, I was interested in that article from an earlier date). Regarding, the other two RfCs about Big Bang, and Atheism, I do not deny that I might had also been influenced by the fact that there were some people involved (on both sides) who also participated the previous "Militant Atheism" debates, but I have not entered those debates just to add more !votes, most the time I tried to search for sources related to these respective topics, to help their improvement. For example, you can check my comments from the Big Bang RfCs. But regarding the RfC on "Atheism", I admit I was unable to do any serious contribution, despite my initial hopes.Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of Anupam's disputes in the last ~6 months include Militant atheism, Big Bang, Atheism, Christmas Eve, MoP's talk, his previous ANI case, and this ANI. Both you and Lionelt were involved in all of them. In 6 of those 7 cases, you arrived at the discussion after Anupam was 'in trouble' without any previous involvement, ever. Five of those seven appear in your last ~25 edits, the remaining 2 in your last 50. The idea that you and Lionelt and all the others just happened across all of them on your own is kind of silly. The two of you are not the only ones magically appearing, either, or even the best examples in some cases. I don't think your editing rises to the level of disruption on its own, which is why you're not the subject of this thread. However, Anupam's magical "vote for me" and "save me from 3rr" posse is at issue here, and you are unfortunately involved in that crowd. That behavior, along with the plagiarizing, POV pushing, misrepresentations, etc, all needs to stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out to the administrators that many of the individuals here who wish to censure me participated in this RfC and took a position different than myself in the content dispute. There was a legitimate position who voted to keep the article intact, which is being underrepresented here. I would kindly ask the administrators to please look at this RfC and realize that some of the individuals at this ANI thread have taken a position in a content dispute, in which I took the opposite position. Yes, I did not use any sockpuppets and I have yet to see an actual checkuser performed to verify that I am not any of the SPAs (which participated in both sides of the content dispute). For example, Jkhwiki (talk · contribs), Obhave (talk · contribs), Runirokk (talk · contribs), Devilishlyhandsome (talk · contribs), et. al are single purpose accounts who took the same position as Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), and ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs). At the same time, there were SPAs that voted to keep the article, including Jacob800 (talk · contribs), Turnsalso (talk · contribs), Troisprenoms (talk · contribs), Jwaxman1 (talk · contribs), etc. User:Mann jess is quick to say that User:Cody7777777 appeared at the Big Bang RfC, which was listed at WP:XNB and the Religion and Philosophy RfC list, but denies the fact that his compatriots here, User:IRWolfie-, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:ArtifexMayhem, along with himself (User:Mann jess) all magically showed up at the article, picking the exact same Draft, and yet, are the same users who are working together to censure me. Individuals, such as User:Dominus Vobisdu hope to remove me from editing articles so that they can censor information in articles to fit their interpretation, such as this recent edit. Once again, please consider this before making any decisions. It is very unfair that one group of editors target me and try to ban me for holding different views than them. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang is an article that I've edited previously; it's been on my watchlist for a long time. AFAIK, the same is true for all the other editors you listed beside my name. It is not true of Cody or others who magically show up in all your disputes, just when you need help. Here's a great example; I came here only after being notified. Lionelt and Cody, on the other hand, seem to just have noticed the discussion, even with Cody being semi-retired. That happened on Militant atheism too. It also happened on Atheism. It also happened in your previous ANIs. Attacking my character on the basis that we've been in previous disputes is ridiculous, considering I'm commenting on your behavior in those disputes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Obhave is not an SPA. See Special:Contributions/Obhave. You also missed quite a few SPAs magically showing up to vote keep on the other end. Trying to equate the two is grossly misrepresenting facts, yet again...   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is it a mystery that I turned up at the RFC on the Big Bang theory? I had it in my watchlist from the previous RFC and you posted it at the wikiproject physics talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Big_Bang_RfC_.28Part_II.29 which I look at, I even commented on your post at wikiproject physics for the first RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_February_2012#Big_Bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thankyou for remaining superficially civil. However, you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented sources, plagiarised, ballot-stuffed, and generally cheated - whatever it takes to push your message. You have got away with it for a long time but that kind of editing has no place on en.wikipedia. This crusade is a net negative to the encyclopædia. Essays like Militant Atheism may be welcome on conservapedia, but not here, because en.wikipedia requires truthfulness and neutrality. Some good editors have been driven away; others have wasted many hours trying to mitigate the pov-pushing. Since you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or fix the problem - and instead have the chutzpah to pretend that there's a conspiracy against you - I think it's time to propose a topic ban. The last time this was tried, the thread was shut down 2 hours later; I hope that won't happen again. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I remain civil because I prefer to engage in friendly dialogue with others, discussing content rather than attacking individuals. If I wanted to prove a point with the Militant atheism article, then why would I write an entire section criticising the term in that article. I have repeatedly explained that every source in that article was from an academic book or journal, thus fulfilling WP:NPOV. There is a reason that I placed every single quote from the original book or journal in the quote parameter of the references - to demonstrate that these are not my words, but the words of the authors who wrote them. An administrator on Conservapedia interpreted my edits similarly to the way you do, but did you see my response to him? It is evident that I am not the one here who is pushing a message. Thanks, Anupam 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you added back plagiarized/copyvio text after being told not to both on your talk and in edit summaries? And of course, you didn't respond to the warning either. This canvassing and plagiarism (I'm not commenting on the POV bit as I haven't spent any time at all on those articles) been going on for far too long, that I'm sure the topic ban below is too narrow to be of any use. —SpacemanSpiff 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to add that I find Anupam's approach to dispute resolution to be problematic as well. In this edit: Anupam demonstrates that he's also willing to plagiarize[REDACTED] itself, inserting articles wholesale into Conservapedia with no attribution. Compare versions: Misplaced Pages, Conservapedia. When community consensus leads to an article being deleted, the appropriate response is not to export the disputed content, unattributed, to another site. aprock (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Details of Anupam's WP:OWN - here and here, with details of diff and complains of multiple editor. The WP:OWN of Anupam also resulted in many editors left editting. But the Anupam's preferred admin didn't take any action. -Abhishikt (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As a result of the long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on - I propose that anupam is topic-banned from editing on atheism or religion, broadly construed. Alas, this seems to be the best solution to a long-term problem, because other attempts to help anupam edit honestly have failed.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (Edited to add: Considering that anupam has at length refused to acknowledge any of the problems and has framed it all as a partisan POV dispute, I now realise a community ban would be a better option if possible. However, I'll leave this proposal here as a topic ban has much more obvious support; if the closing administrator feels there's not enough support for a community ban, I hope a topic ban will be accepted as the fallback option, hopefully including Dominus Vobisdu's proposed extension.). bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed Extension: I propose that controversial social and political issues be added to the topic ban. The ban as proposed is too narrow, and Anupam has been disruptive in basically all areas that would interest a Conservapedia editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension above, though I much more prefer an outright community ban. Anupam has a long history of disruptive and tendentious POV pushing. Based on his attempts to minimize his transgressions and to shift blame elsewhere in this very thread, it's clear that Anupam intends to always be a disruptive editor in the areas included, and that POV pushing, misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus, edit warring, filibustering, sock puppetry and meatpuppetry are fundamental elements of his editing repertoir, which is clearly calculated to consume the time of editors who disagree with him. His apologies and promises to improve can't be taken seriously because they fail to address the many problems countless editors have enumerated during the course of the discussion. He has made a huge mess that other editors will have to spend countless hours cleaning up. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but to disrupt that process and push his own POV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Anupam is an valuable contributor with a clean, unblemished, block-free record. The plagiarism issues need to be dealt with: but not with this Draconian response. The best method for dealing with this is specialized mentoring tailored for this issue, and escalating blocks. Plain and simple.

The gallery of users who have lined up here to crucify Anupam for the most part are those who were on the losing end of a content dispute. ANI is not a place for settling old scores. We all have a POV and we don't topic ban people who don't share our POV. Anupam wins content debates the old fashioned way: with sound and polite reasoning, and when all else fails RFC. This is nothing more than a crucifiction: an attempt to censor an editor who has successfully been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV. I pray that the community will not allow this group to drive away another veteran editor.– Lionel 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

From my experience recent experience on Atheism Anupam tries to win content debates with some light edit warring and then a talk page discussion trying to push obviously undue material that suits his POV by starting frivolous RfC's at the drop of a hat (as you say, he's been an editor for 7 years, kind of hard to believe he doesn't know the policies and guidelines). Also, how could a 7 year veteran be still plagarising? (and no, I wasn't on the "losing end" of the debate). You refer to "rampant pro-atheist POV" and "anti-Christian vandals". You claim Anupam is editing Atheistic articles from a christian perspective. Editors should not be editing atheist articles from a "christian perspective" as you put it, they should be trying to be neutral . If an editor said there were going to edit Catholic sex abuse cases from an "Islamic perspective", I'd clearly be worried about their bias as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring????? He has a clean block record. WTF are you talking about? These are exactly the kind of attacks that are representative of this entire farce masquerading as a Topic Ban Discussion. – Lionel 03:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, honesty is not optional, it is required. Anupum has received numerous warnings from admins. For example, he was warned by EdJohnston in March 2010. He was warned about his edit warring in September 2011 by admin Wifone and admitted to edit warring in November 2011 in another incident where he was warned yet again by admin Wifione. Additionally, he's been constantly warned by the user community, for example by Griswwaldo and Tryptofish in March 2011, and by multiple users over many years. So for you to question this, Lionelt, is indicative of a larger problem. Just because someone is civil doesn't allow them to flagrantly violate every major policy and guideline. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Anupam has never been blocked in 7 years. The incidents you cite, one of which was not EW but tendentious editing, for the most part were not egregious, were resolved to the satisfaction of the involved admin, and in totality do not justify besmirching this editor's reputation with the label "edit warrior." – Lionel 06:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice Chewbacca defense. You deny he's been warned by multiple admins and editors about his persistent edit warring because...he's never been blocked? Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're opposing on the grounds that a block is more appropriate, then we can do a block. A lot of editors have said they support an outright block, rather than second chance with a TB. If, on the other hand, you're opposing because Anupam has "been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV", then I think that speaks for itself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, I would be open to a temporary block, much more than an indefinite topic ban. That being said, if it is the community's desire (right now there are also several votes opposing a ban), I will follow through with a topic ban, but I would like for the topic ban to list a specific time period (e.g. six months, one year, two years, etc.). I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, by "Christian perspective" I was referring to the Misplaced Pages precept that "Everybody has a point of view" WP:NOVFAQ. Sometimes when an editor is very closely aligned with the subject in which they edit they develop tunnel vision. In these cases it is helpful for an "outsider"--as it were--to help make the content neutral. I.e. a fresh set of eyes. – Lionel 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, indefinite does not mean infinite. An indefinite topic ban could be lifted at any time that the community felt you had demonstrated a willingness and ability to edit productively in these areas. Considering the level of disruption here (enough to potentially warrant being indefinitely community banned), I don't think putting a timer on a a topic ban is a good idea. Editors with such a timer often just "wait it out", without learning to edit productively. You're welcome to propose a definite topic ban, but I have my doubts the community would support it at this time. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that would help. How can I "learn to edit productively," as you state, without gaining experience on those articles that you deem that I edit problematically? I am confident that if this proposal (which is not neutrally worded at all) passes (which it might or might not), many of the editors who voted here will be unwilling to let me edit in this topic. For this reason, I think this proposal should specify a time, even if it is one or two years. With regards, Anupam 04:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes.... if the topic ban proposal passes, you will not be allowed to edit in the topic. That's the point of a topic ban. If you demonstrate you can edit productively in other areas, you may appeal the topic ban after some time has passed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow where that quote is from, it's not in WP:NPOVFAQ. What I do see is a section on Dealing with biased contributors. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. I have already expressed most of my reasons in this comment. Since he is an editor who also has done many useful contributions (including new articles), I don't think it is fair to assume he cannot become a better editor, despite his previous mistakes. And the claim that his civility is superficial looks more like a bad faith assumption in my opinion. As I said before, I also think Moreschi's previous suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, is a more constructive solution, since Misplaced Pages should not throw away editors with good potential. But if there is a ban, it should only be temporary. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cody7777777 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

So you are okay with topic ban? -Abhishikt (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I stated quite clearly I oppose the topic ban proposed here. And it should have had at least a time limit specified.Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on religion, atheism, and politics related articles, broadly construed, per discussion and evidence presented above. There is more than enough evidence for his civil POV pushing, plagiarism, misuse of sources and deception. I'm not sure there is enough evidence for sockpuppetry, but there are strong indications. If anyone is still unsure about his true intentions, please take a look at his conservapedia talk page.--В и к и T 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. You can see my response right there. Thanks, Anupam 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor has a clear POV as evidenced the continued plagiarism and misuse of sources. MarnetteD | Talk 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support Anupam has always been one of the most polite people I've encountered on wiki. Many people here seem to believe it's a ruse for civil POV pushing. I don't agree, I would rather AGF on his end, especially since I've seen what bad faith religious POV pushing looks like. I don't need to say any names, most of the editors commenting above could probably pick someone from memory and they'd be a good enough example. With that said, a lot of the above commentary and diffs do illustrate what I would consider to be problematic, and so I have to support a topic ban for the good of the encyclopedia. No prejudice to a removal of the topic ban if Anupam can demonstrate at some point in the future that he understands the concerns expressed by other editors (especially the idea that almost nothing on Conservapedia is worthy of being part of WP, and that WP serves an entirely different purpose), but I think a 3-6 month break in the meantime will be necessary. SÆdon 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, the problem is that this topic ban thread does not specify a time frame. If it is the community's desire, I will follow through with a topic ban, but it should specify a time period, three to six months, one year, two years, etc. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I would support 3-6 months; it will be up to the closing admin to decide the length after considering the arguments made in the proposal. It's not uncommon for users to express multiple opinions on ban length, it's just part of the process. SÆdon 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension - I don't really think this guys is fooling anyone any more. I also would have nothing against a community ban. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Cody777777's comments - and as per the users article creation list - the user has a large percentage of wiki beneficial contributions - a less extreme restriction is far preferable - Youreallycan 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC; I respect your opposition; you're haven't been mired in most of the previous disputes on these topics so nobody could accuse you of being partisan. However, if I remember correctly, you've made great efforts on BLP and this is close to your heart; how would you feel if problematic editing touched on BLPs too? For instance, going to the Breivik article and adding "Breivik quoted liberals like Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins" as part of a crusade to prove that Atheists are Bad People. Personally, I think there have been enough second chances; the BLP violations should be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support On the topic of Atheism related articles broadly construed. Anupam is clearly unable to leave his own bias at the door and try and edit the articles from a neutral point of view and has been involved in POV pushing etc on these articles. That he edits these articles from a "christian perspective" as Lionelt put it, is worrying. I don't edit christianity articles from an an atheistic perspective; nor should any editor. I would suggest a temporary block as well to stop the "never been blocked" mantra which keeps appearing at these ANI discussions. Outside of this, I am unsure how serial plagerism (even after warnings) can be dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The partisan aspect of all the main contributors in this area is tangible , not just this user but all of them - removing one user from the topic area when all of the players are equally partisan is detrimental to the neutral position. Youreallycan 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being partisan when I encountered Anupam on Atheism, Editors should have a reasonable expectation that other editors won't POV push, "I'm not the only one breaking the rules" isn't a valid defense. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a strong COI amongst many of the contributors there - basically all the interested users are conflicted - they are all biased - restricting a single one is a biased partisan desire - Youreallycan 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you believe other editors have broken the rules bring that up in a separate ANI filing, other than that it's mere speculation. Other editors breaking rules or not has never been a defense before and it should not be now for your friend Anupam from what I've seen (it just results in both parties being reprimanded). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- enough already, it's perfectly obvious that if this isn't done the disruption will continue unabated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per IRWolfie. Editors should edit from a neutral point of view, not with a bias to balance some other percieved bias. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with a BLP example: In this addition, sourced to a partisan opinion piece in a partisan tabloid, Anupam links Richard Dawkins to Anders Behring Breivik and the Unabomber, and doesn't miss the opportunity to call Dawkins a "militant atheist". In reality, Breivik wrote about Dawkins unfavorably. Prolog (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Continued and unrepentant plagiarism and edit warring is not excused by hollow apologies. Given that this problematic behavior extends outside the proposed topic area this will give Anupam a good chance to turn over a new leaf and edit collaboratively with the community in areas where he has in the past been disruptive. aprock (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Edit warring???? I demand that you strike. He's been here 7 years and never been blocked. – Lionel 03:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So if an editor isn't blocked, that means he isn't edit warring? That's a strange definition. Editors are typically only blocked for 3rr, which Anupam is very careful to avoid. He edit wars constantly, however. There are at least a few examples in this thread alone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support with extension, but prefer community ban. My overwhelming preference, of course, is that Anupam understands that the community finds his behavior unacceptable, and begins editing productively across the site. However, I don't have any confidence that will ever happen. His repeated misrepresentation of sources, article history and other editors in an attempt to manipulate consensus is unacceptable on any article. In previous ANI cases, I wanted lighter sanctions imposed, but I have since lost faith that they will be sufficient. I don't put any trust in the content he contributes to the site due to his extended history of sneaky pov pushing and meatpuppetry to influence consensus, and it's unfair to expect multiple other productive editors to scrutinize his every edit while we give him yet another trial run. That said, a topic ban is better than nothing, and maybe it'll turn out that I'm wrong. Very unfortunately, I doubt it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Misplaced Pages. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who wish to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety, Qaisar Bagh) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators, rather than being topic banned. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly not a content dispute as the numerous diffs have shown throughout this discussion. I did not comment on the Militant Atheism RfC, nor have multiple other editors in this discussion. This is again more deflection from your own editing pattern. What Prolog showed is pretty damning. Seems like he didn't comment on that RfC either. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, If plagiarism was the only disruptive conduct, this might suffice. But the problem extends well beyond simple plagiarism. Your failure to acknowledge your other disruptive behavior (ignoring multiple notices and warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, canvasing, misrepresenting sources, etc) only points to further disruptive editing down the road. Your claim that you "accept the decisions of the RfCs" is contradicted by the fact that when the Militant Atheism RfC went against you, you immediately exported the content to Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=922868&oldid=909277. Adhering to the letter of the RfC while simultaneously contravening the spirit of the RfC is exactly the sort of disruptive editing that needs to end. aprock (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Calling an veteran editor with a clean block record an edit warrior is false, and a personal attack. – Lionel 03:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, it is, indeed, unfortunate that you will be unable to edit your preferred topic. However, understand that there are two options on the table right now: a community ban or a topic ban. If the community decides that a topic ban is preferable, that says we want you to stay and continue editing, and that if the problems outlined here are addressed, then maybe (at some point in the distant future) you can get the topic ban lifted and continue editing these articles again. Continuing to apologize for only one aspect of the thread won't help matters; we need to see your behavior improve, which is an opportunity you would be afforded with a topic ban. I have my doubts that will happen, but I'm hopeful that I am wrong. Please accept that the community views this behavior as disruptive, and stop recruiting editors off-site to post in your discussions, double-check that sources say what you're claiming before adding them, stop cherry-picking from the literature to support an ideological agenda, stop close paraphrasing, and try to hear what other editors are saying, and accept those contrary opinions without trying to force an RfC, votestack and manipulate consensus. If you can do that, we want you here. If you can't, then that's not behavior we can accept. Being honest about your intentions and clearly indicating what communication/canvassing is going on off-site (as well as putting an end to it) would go a long way. Short of that, it's hard to see these issues clearing up on their own.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, I am not guilty for half of those accusations that you list. I always try to discuss things with others and do indeed accept the community outcomes of RfCs. If the community does feel a topic ban is necessary (although I believe that any problems can be easily remedied by working with an administrator), I would appreciate a specified time: one year, two years, five years? However, proposing an indefinite topic ban is not helpful. Thanks for taking the time to read this. With regards, Anupam 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you again claim to "accept the community outcomes of RfCs" in a thread where it was clearly illustrated that you don't. It's difficult to imagine a positive outcome when this level of denial is demonstrated. aprock (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed accept the community outcome for all RfCs. Take the most recent one for example, here. Did I ever try to push the information back into the article or did I leave it as is? This is representative of my behavior at Misplaced Pages - to discuss disputes and gain input from the community if there are disagreements. To ban me for this is what is really sad. Have a nice day, Anupam 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is representive of your behaviour? So I summarise then that you typically edit war before making RFCs without discussing them first, and then refuse to close the RfC when consensus is very clear, and then make an invention that a particular administrator will close the RfC. This is your standard practice? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam, the funny thing is, even if you were only guilty of "half" of it, as you claim, that would still rise to the level of a community ban, IMO. That said, strong evidence has been presented in this thread of each one of the things I asked you to stop doing. Your big apology above resonated with me, which is why I reached out and suggested you stay on the site and work within the confines of the TB. That you've switched back to denying everything and accusing everyone of wanting to censor dissenting opinions (below) quashes any sense of sympathy I had. We're right back where we started: You're being disruptive, lots of editors have warned you about it every way they know how, and you still won't accept there's anything wrong. This indicates you'll continue your problematic behavior, and we can't have that. These responses of yours are why I supported a community ban, and until you're able to hear criticism and edit collaboratively, that's IMO the only solution that will actually work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support for ban for Atheism, religion or controversial topics. Reasons: Anupam has shown issues of WP:POV, WP:OWN multiple times in many atheism/religion/science related articles like Atheism, Militant Atheism, Big Bang, Creation–evolution controversy‎, Existence of God‎, etc. He often refuses to get to the point during discussion - an example of it. We should not forget that the fact that he is a regular Conservapedia editor. When Militant Atheism article got removed, he moved the entire article as it is to Conservapedia and it was made article of the month there. This shows how biased his POV is for atheism/religion/science related articles.

His recent 3RR incident, where I mentioned that his POV pushing takes lot of effort from other editors, resulting in wastage of hundreds of hours of WP community.

Anupam complained about unfair warnings to him, but he himself give me such recently here. Unrelated dubious thing: Anupam deleting notice from his talk page diff.-Abhishikt (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on User:Abhishikt's recent participation in an RfC. He states: "The discussion in above section is pretty clear that this is WP:UNDUE and cherry picking of sentences to push POV for showing that religious people are not stupid/less educated." He also, like most of the editors here wishing to ban me, held the position opposite mine in this content dispute. Once again, editors here simply wish to ban me because I held a different position than them in a content dispute. One can imagine that this kind of POV will be normative if I am banned, as the individuals opposing me and several others in this RfC wish. Thanks, Anupam 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you give the context of the RfC? Above comment was for opposing the including of sentence - "However, a 2011 scholarly study published in the Review of Religious Research demonstrated that education is not correlated with disbelief in God". That reminds me: Anupam pushes hard for his POV even against the already formed consensus. This RfC is good example of that. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy violation in holding a view contrary to yours. Did I try to reinstate the academic journal after the RfC was closed, or while it was running? I did not, but instead, discussed the situation and accepted the outcome of the RfC. No editor should be banned for this. I hope this helps. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still saying that you are correct and the result of RfC (closed as per WP:SNOW) was wrong? The RfC created by you was entirely unnecessary as there were consensus in above section. This is just a very small example for wastage of valuable wiki community's efforts. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This sounds like an attempt to censor an opposing view. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Fasttimes68, thank you for your kind comments. This is exactly what is taking place. Most of the editors wishing to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC/content dispute, despite the fact that I accepted the outcome of the RfC. I always discuss content disputes with others and if RfCs are held, I accept the outcome. I feel hurt that some individuals want to ban me simply for holding a viewpoint different to theirs. Thanks again for your participation. With regards, Anupam 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Fasttimes68. Personally, I edit in controversial areas so there's a very long list of editors that I disagree with on some point of content (if you think atheism is partisan, try editing Balkan geography or alt-med or diacritics). We usually get along fine, though; discuss, bring better sources, negotiate, compromise. I have not proposed topic bans for these hundreds of editors; I don't bring them to AN/I at all. I'm proposing a topic ban for the one editor who has consistently distorted, plagiarised, cheated, and lied - whatever it takes to push their POV, with contempt for the community, and burning out other editors. bobrayner (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban, but would accept a topic ban as described as a bare minimum. In addition to the inexcusable plagiarisim (and editor of his tenure should no better), the wp:battlefield and viewpoint expressed above ("editors here simply wish to ban me because I held a different position than them in a content dispute" - I'm uninvolved, thank you) indicate that the principles behind Wiki are not accepted and that future conflicts are inevitable. Regarding the idea espoused that his other contributions require opposition to the proposal, I add that should he only be topic banned, there's plenty of other topics within WP awaiting the editors contributions. Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose* IRWolfie-,first of all thanks for letting me know on my talk page about this discussion.Actually I am travelling and not able to log in regularly to edit wikipedia's articles.You mentioned my name in the discussion,that is not problem for me.But problem is that how much eager are the one chain of editors to be blocked an editor. Anupam is not only valuable but also a good editor to patrol monopolies and WP:Own,I do realy not see the grounds to be blocked from editing or editing religious articles.I would like to show a mirror that makes me surprised This,and on talk page of Atheism, where Tiderolls noticed, That. After Dominus Vobisdu, you immeddiately placed edit warring tag,here, it was not legitimate reason to notice me after two reverts. I consider it is WP:Hound and WP:Own. Any Consensus as the policy I have to accept,but I realy will not it recognised as a real concept of the wikipolicies on the demand of one chain of editors. There should not be applied "blocked" rule, untill fair and unrelated editors consensus is there,I think. I have not much time to discuss it in detail,sorry.(It was my comment but using now for vote. God bless you all. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:I demand that the unproven accusation of sockpuppetry and "and so on" be removed. This constitutes a personal attack. – Lionel 03:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner: maybe you should work on controlling your own edit warring tendencies before accusing others .– Lionel 05:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, the report you linked to resulted in page protection, not sanctions. Below, you've indicated repeatedly that Anupam has not edit warred because he hasn't been blocked. Are you being genuine here, or are you just trying to start fights so as to derail the thread? You can't claim Anupam hasn't edit warred on some bogus criteria you made up, but then ignore that criteria to claim other editors have. Read the diffs in that report if you're going to cite it; 3 of the 5 reverts came from another editor, not Bobrayner. Anupam's history of edit warring, on the other hand, is abundantly clear; frankly, it's a wonder he hasn't been blocked.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Lionel was unaware that that 3RR noticeboard report was a pre-emptive measure filed by an edit warrior who was a few reverts ahead of me, after I'd given them a talkpage warning. An edit-warrior who was stripping well-sourced content out of an article because only a subset of the sources fitted their POV. Such tactics will surely be familiar to any editor close to anupam. How was this thread started? (Also, even if the tu quoque were accurate, it would still be a fallacy). As for the sockpuppetry, the diffs speak for themselves. bobrayner (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Is it harmless editing or further evidence of a crusade? Make up your own mind. bobrayner (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What? User:Conservative is not my account; I am User:Anupam. If you noticed my words there (one, two) you would find comments that accurately characterizes me, as espousing neutrality. I am not responsible for what others post on my talk pages. User:Bobrayner, congratulations on trying to frame me here. Not only did you open a topic ban thread which was worded non-neutrally, you've outright lied about my contributions and have made accusations without evidence. --Anupam 12:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see neutral has a different meaning on conservapedia, neutral includes your creation of and massive work on "Atheism and the suppression of science". I see a friendly Conservepdia admin appears to have wiped nearly all of the edit history of your talk page, including the rather conspiratorial message that was left by User:conservative. good thing it's still cached here: . IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Anupam makes valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I think it is pretty clear even in this discussion that he is very civil. I have had problems with editors in the past, but never with Anupam. I can't even say I ever had an ideological dispute with him. (BTW, I am atheist). AFAIK, Anupam has contributed to Misplaced Pages for years on a wide variety of topics. Unfortunately, I have seen a similarly valuable and dedicated editor be banned altogether from Misplaced Pages before, even as vandals get off scot-free. I don't want to have to see that again. I am sure that Anupam has good intentions here. I don't really understand why some users seem to have a problem with him, or why they feel so sure that they should not continue to assume good faith as (if I remember correctly) Misplaced Pages absolutely requires. Frankly, I think trying to topic-ban an editor like Anupam is a waste of time. In the amount of time it takes to argue for such a ban, you could instead fight vandals or actually try to improve the encyclopedia's content. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kuaichic, thanks for returning to wikipedia. I notice that the last time you edited anything other than your userpage was in 2009. What brought you to this thread? Did somebody ask you to defend anupam? There have been concerns about canvassing in previous debates involving anupam, so - alas! - suspicions are inevitable. bobrayner (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have been following Atheism for a long period and have noticed Anupam's methodology, which has been accurately summarized above. Some people are not able to be neutral about some topics, and a formal parting would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Conduct problems on these issues are recurrent on[REDACTED] and this suggestion seems the sensible way forward. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with additional conditions for copyvios After looking through the contribution history it is clear that this topic ban is required, albeit a very lenient approach. I'd like to add that any copyvio/close paraphrase/plagiarism that follows should be dealt with by escalating blocks, the third or fourth of which ought to be indefinite. It is also disingenuous to claim that Anupam is not disruptive because he's civil, we're here to build an encyclopaedia not have a jolly good conversation over tea and crumpets, the disruption is in the quality of content and passive aggressive behavior. The canvassing concerns are even visible on this topic ban proposal. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, clearly a pattern of persistent tendentious and problematic editing. Whether or not it regularly crosses the line into plagiarism or not, it is still piss-poor writing. We can do without editors who have both obvious ideological agendas and such a poor grasp of academic writing, messing up our most intellectually high-profile and most sensitive articles, such as Religion or Atheism, in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as second preference, also support community ban as first preference. The longer this thread goes on the longer I get the feeling that there is some serious meatpuppetry going on here. This entire scenario is setting my spidey-sense tingling. It reminds me far too much of the Polish-Russian ethnic warfare of 2007-2010 that culminated in the Eastern European mailing list case, and also of the Hindutva brigades of Rama's Arrow and other cases. The effortless coordination of bona fide accounts and SPAs is really suspicious, and absolutely typical of what we have come to expect in these kinds of cases. I really, really think this seemingly Conservapedia-based editing is being coordinated through some kind of off-site forum or mailing list. I could of course be wrong, and accounts like Turnsalso (talk · contribs) may be simple sockpuppets, either of Anupam or somebody else, but that doesn't change the overall picture here that much. Either way, I think I've seen enough that the presumptions of good faith I would usually extend are rapidly disappearing. I think it's time to purge this hornet's nest with fire. Moreschi (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well Moreschi you figured it out. Yes, I am a meatpuppet. A puppet for Lionelt. – Lionel 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a prelude to a community ban if they can't get their act together in the spirit of WP:ROPE. This user is nominally civil, but their contributions are horrid. Take a look at their editing at The Hunger Games (film), where they cherry picked one phrase out of a quote to support a single interpretation which vastly misrepresented the source. This is par for the course, and Anupman has totally failed to acknowledge that there is any sort of problem whatsoever with their constant plagiarism and agenda-driven editing. The fact that they seem to have a small group of supporters that come out of the woodwork at any criticism of their editing makes me question how effective this will be.eldamorie (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with extension, would also support a community ban. I lack confidence that habitual plagiarists will change their ways, but if Anupam wants to become a better researcher and writer, he should work on that somewhere other than Misplaced Pages. The ideologically motivated editing is an even stronger reason for him to go elsewhere, and as Moreschi says this thread is making me highly suspicious that there's sock- and/or meatpuppetry going on. So my preference would be that Anupam leave Misplaced Pages entirely, but if that's not going to happen he should be restricted from atheism/religion articles, where he seems to be causing the biggest problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - After looking at all of the diffs presented, it seems clear that Anupam has not only a problem with plagiarism but an inability to see that he is misrepresenting sources to push his POV. I think it's a little odd that somone who is unfailingly polite gets to exhibit IDHT behavior for years, disruptively; if Anupam had ever showed any aggression or incivility in his comments, his block log would not be so clean. Being civil is not a license to be academically dishonest (even if it's not deliberate). Chillllls (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment: Unfortunately, an administrator on conservapedia has hidden some of the evidence since it was mentioned here. Anupam can always count on support from certain editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the page has been deleted today (deletion log)--В и к и T 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One again, User:Bobrayner and User:Wikiwind, both participants of this RfC/content dispute, in which they held a viewpoint different from mine among many others', misrepresent me. If you care to look at the context of the situation, see Bobrayner's talk page. Thanks, Anupam 19:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For those users who deny any partisan interest here, refer to the comments of User:Bobrayner, the individual who opened the proposal to ban me: "I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade." User:Nomoskedasticity, also states: "Did you actually just use a FoxNews slogan as an argument? Oh, I get it -- you're trying to mock that version of oppose arguments. Well done." The intolerance for individuals who disagree with their viewpoints is atrocious. User:Youreallycan really hit the nail on the head here (by the way, thank you for your comments, User:Youreallycan). User:Bobrayner, User:Mann jess, and others here are creating a Misplaced Pages:BATTLEGROUND by trying to ban me for disagreeing with their viewpoint in this RfC/content dispute. Being of Indian origin, I am exposed to the viewpoints of many religions and views (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, Sikhism, etc.) and respect individuals views. In real life, many of my friends are atheists, as well as adherents of other religions. To want to ban me for "POV pushing" when I always discuss my edits, participate in RfCs and accept their outcome is inappropriate. Has anyone even bothered to look at the latest RfC I opened? I attempted to add a study in a five sentence paragraph which discussed an inverse correlation on religiosity and intelligence. I thought that adding one sentence from a study which demonstrated a direct correlation between religiosity and education would help balance the other five sentences, keeping the paragraph in line with WP:NPOV, as well as WP:DUE (since I only proposed adding one sentence). What do I get in return? I am accused of misrepresenting the source, cherry picking, etc. despite the fact that three mainstream media sources (CNN, Daily Mail, and CP) published a news story on the academic study, reporting the same facts that I did. Nevertheless, consensus was against me after the RfC and I did not protest or anything. Like usual, I accepted the outcome of the RfC. Now, I am being banned for simply discussing an addition. This kind of behavior is not only unjust, but it is outright hurtful. Yes, I realize that I should have done a better job of paraphrasing and I was willing to work on that. User:Bobrayner, et. al. however, thought it would be a good idea to ban me altogether. --Anupam 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This post once again illustrates the problem precisely. Anupam again repeats the falsehood that he "participate in RfCs and accept their outcome". Exporting unattributed content to another website to promote your point of view when an RfC goes against you is precisely not "accepting the outcome". This level of unrepentant misrepresentation is exactly the problem with your editing. aprock (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that relevant? If I wrote the content and wanted to preserve my work outside Misplaced Pages, that is acceptable. I never reverted the redirecting of the article at Misplaced Pages, which is what is relevant here. The article at Conservapedia now, and the article at Misplaced Pages, read the same. Moreover, there is no promotion of any point of view; I wrote the article in accordance with WP:NPOV, which is why the article includes a "Criticism of the term" section. When some editors tried to make the article favorable to a certain position, they were quickly reverted by myself. In addition, articles that I created here, such as Qaisar Bagh, are also featured there without any problem. I hope this addresses your point. Thanks, Anupam 20:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it relevant? Your response is a prime example of the problem here:

1. Exporting the content unattributed is a violation of[REDACTED] copyright.
2. You explicitly reject the outcome of the RfC here by asserting that the disputed content was neutral despite a clear consensus to the contrary.
3. You repeatedly refused to understand/accept a clear illustration of your POV pushing and disruptive editing.

Based on your response here, I suspect that a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban. Continued unrepentant denial of disruptive editing is not the path to improving the project. aprock (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You state "Exporting the content unattributed is a violation of wikipedia." In response, I state, look at the attribution template on the talk page. You state "Yu explicitly reject the outcome of the RfC by asserting that the Conservapedia article represents NPOV." In response, I state when are editors required to agree with the outcome of an RfC? I simply must accept the outcome and let business on Misplaced Pages proceed as normal. You state "You repeatedly refused to understand/accept a clear illustration of your POV pushing and disruptive editing." I state that I have discussed any edits that I have made on this encyclopedia and open RfCs to gain the wider input of the community, and accept their outcome as I delineated above. Thanks, Anupam 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that attribution. Unsurprisingly, it violates Conservapedia's guidelines: Permitted: You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. Pushing your POV on wikipedia, and then exporting disputed content is disruptive. It doesn't matter how polite you are. That is not what[REDACTED] is for. aprock (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Most strongly oppose permanent topic ban or community ban. Weakly support two-week topic ban or more strongly support a general censure by administrators, with no strong action taken unless the behaviour continues in a disruptive manner. In my dealings with Anupam, he has been nothing but civil; he has a POV; so does everyone who either supports or opposes him, and, as I oppose as per virtually every oppose !vote above, I also add my voice to the sentiment, that this seems to be the effort of one, predominant POV, to censor another, less-predominant POV, using such policies as WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT as a WP:COATRACK or clothing: but The Emperor Has No Clothes. St John Chrysostom _τω 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded dozens of fair use and public domain files and even with my exposure I still get confused with the myriad of copyright laws and relevant WP policies. CC-BY-SA, GNU, PD-NO-NOTICE... Anupam cannot be faulted for making an attribution error. He is not an attorney. So stop with this ridiculous obession with Conservapedia. I wonder if Conservapedia is being repeatedly invoked merely to stoke the rabid anti-Conservapedia sentiment against Anupam.– Lionel 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, you and your group aren't doing him any favors. You're encouraging him to continue battling this out, rather than accepting the input he's getting from the community which may have allowed him to improve his editing under a topic ban and eventually return to his favorite articles. Because of your encouragement, he's demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to accept criticism of his behavior and improve, which is why it appears he won't be afforded an opportunity to, for fear of continued damage to the encyclopedia. You can keep arguing about these atheist conspiracies if you want, but it hasn't swayed consensus yet, and it doesn't seem likely it ever will. I think it's time we let this back and forth between you and every other editor drop, and just let the community speak for itself.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: when Anupam speaks of "partisan interest" he may be referring to the kind of mindset displayed here by ArtifexMayhem above and moved here:

Crucifixion's a doddle. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 3:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Was he baiting Anupam? Me? (In fact I bit on this one, but that's beside the point.) I think this post speaks volumes. – Lionel 21:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing of the sort. It is a quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian, Scene 16: Crucifixion: Could Be Worse... and was, in its original placement, simply a humorous response to your comment claiming editors "...have lined up here to crucify Anupam..." and that "This is nothing more than a crucifiction: an attempt to censor an editor who has successfully been neutralizing the rampant pro-atheist POV." Obviously a failed attempt on my part and for that I apologize.

Of course you did have the option of assuming good faith and asking me to clarify or even strike the comment. Instead you decided to use it as an excuse to make a direct personal attack against me and my kind of "mindset".

So yes, I agree, your post does speak volumes. Reams in fact. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess is also misrepresenting the situation again. He states that "we're heartless atheist pov-pushers trying to quash dissenting opinions, and that's the only reason we're all ganging up on him," demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. He also states that "he's still touting the line that we're censoring his religion." User:Mann jess, please be straight with me. When have I ever said that? I would appreciate if you could tell me the answer to my question right now, and provide a diff. If you cannot provide one, I expect you to apologize and explain to me why you are trying to put words into my mouth. What I did assert was that there was a genuine content dispute in which you and I held different viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent me in order to further your agenda to have me banned here. Rather, please be honest. Thanks, Anupam 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to use Qaisar Bagh as an example, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. It's an example of blatant copyright violation.

Content from Anupam:

"Paintings and photographs of the Qaiserbagh gardens taken before 1857 indicate that the main quadrangle, which was the heart of the palace complex, had an elaborate charbagh"

Content from the source

"A study of paintings and photographs of the Kaiserbagh gardens taken before 1857 indicate that the main quadrangle, which was the heart of the palace complex, had an elaborate charbagh"

You were already asked in July 2011 to check your contributions for such copyvios, but you chose to ignore it. And now, you're talking about these copyvios as good contributions. That even now you don't seem to care about these problems and are in fact defending them as good contributions is very concerning. —SpacemanSpiff 08:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've marked the article for copyvio check as I can't access one online source and one offline source. —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I received a DYK for that work demonstrates that it was already checked by several others for these things. Rather than blanking my contributions, you easily could have added quotation marks around the sentence in question. Also please provide me the diff where you asked me to check that article. I do not ever recall being asked to do so. Thanks, Anupam 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've provided the diff earlier, it's pretty much a lost cause if you can not hear anything and continue in this manner, so I see nothing better than a full community ban here.—SpacemanSpiff 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You provided a diff for the article on Kashmir, not Qaisar Bagh, which received a DYK. I do not know why you are not being honest here. I am willing to help correct the Qaisar Bagh article and I admitted that I was wrong in the plagiarism issue several times throughout this thread. I stated that I was willing to work with a group of administrators and mentors on this issue. --Anupam 16:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn the meaning of honest and dishonest before bandying those words about. That diff had a message to you asking you to check and correct your past contributions, something you refuse to acknowledge or act on. Quite the contrary, you are showing this blatant copyvio as an example for a good contribution and instead trying to deflect the problem on others. If we can not get you to understand this, then no amount of mentoring is going to help and it's a waste of productive editors' time. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (second choice) - Primary support is for full community ban (see below), but support topic ban as alternative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've long been concerned about Anupam's often bordering-on-tendentious editing style. This seems like a highly reasonable solution to that problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with extension. Would also be more than willing to act a statement to the effect of a community ban will occur if further copyright violations take place, here or elsewhere. While Anupam is largely civil in his interactions with others, his conduct in general in my eyes raises to the level of making this called for. We are here as per WP:PILLARS to build an NPOV encyclopedia, and the evidence above raises questions in my mind as to whether or not Anupam shares that principle. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support with extensions as a minimum measure - for an indefinite duration (minimum of 1 year). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anupam conduct does not merit a topic ban.Pectore 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per John Carter and the other 25 supporting !votes above. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best sources available. Full stop. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have had limited interaction with Anupam. I do have concerns with him POV pushing and IDHT, and moreso about a posse with other editors. But, I can only hope that the other commenters, here, are not trying to silence him because they disagree with him. The clash of ideas among editors is good for the project -- it produces a better product. I think Anupam needs to realize that combating opposite POV pushing is not a matter of winning, its a matter of properly weighting reliable sources in consensus with other editors. Sometimes, the consensus will be wrong but its how we operate and compromise is necessary. If the consensus is wrong, in time, it will be corrected, if we believe in the process that reasonable people can reason together, and in an open wiki all things change. I know the "in time" thing is hard but it hopefully gets you through the day to make the Project better, where you can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support A lot of talk for a basic problem, if the user has continually plagiarized, that is not acceptable and was done without regard for any of the project's goals. The more perplexing issue is the constant POV-pushing that is overt and subtle, but nonetheless, just as damaging. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose As already outlined clearly by a number of editors above, Topic ban is not a way to end content disputes or disagreements, and this case certainly does not deserve one.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but as second option to total ban. Any topic ban would have to be very broadly construed, as his actions on Thanksgiving match the details of civil POV pushing listed above. DreamGuy (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The above editor has engaged in some obvious canvassing regarding this thread , and is proposing to create an ideologically driven editing bloc, since Anupam is "on the way out (and perhaps Lionel and others...)." In his canvass-note to editors hostile to Anupam he wrote: "we should renew activity to prevent religious bias from being entered into that article" and "we can get even more editors interested in a Thanksgiving article free of ultra-right wing religious talking points."

    We can't ignore the fact that many of Anupam's critics, not all, have had contentious interactions with him at about 5 RFCs. The closing admin must take into account the large number of non-neutral parties participating here. Is this a case where a substantiated case of plagiarism has degenerated into situation where the losing side of content disputes has shown up crying "civil-POV-pushing?" The above editor attempted to create a lynch mob to come here and take Anupam out. Non neutral !voters should be weighed against their past acrimonious exchanges with Anupam.– Lionel 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Lionelt, instead of accusing the other editors, why don't you try to explain/defend accusations raised against Anupam? I believe this thread is about discussing Anupam's editing/behavior. If you read this thread, there are many unanswered questions raised for you as well. Regards. -Abhishikt (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support permanent topic ban. Because this is not an attempt to shut someone you disagree with. This is an editor misbehaving in several manners, preventing improvements to a set of articles, or making them worse. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Anupam's behaviour is disrupting the writing activity. Anupam has refused to stop after being asked many times. Anupam has refused to acknowledge any problems with his edits, his use of sources, or the timing of his supporters. I have no idea how you can construct this to be a content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Jess rightly pointed out that there are only 2 options on the table. The main issue here is plagiarism. The POV objections are in fact content issues and the complainants for the most part are the very editors who disagree with Anupam.

Therefore I propose that:

1. Anupam must acknowledge that plagiarism damages the encyclopedia
2. A special mentor be assigned to review his editing
3. Anupam shall review every edit going back 1 year and correct any plagiarism and close paraphrasing and give a full report to the special-mentor
4. Anupam will be placed on discretionary sanctions for 6 months where any admin may issue escalating blocks without warning in cases of plagiarism. – Lionel 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2 options pointed out by Jess were - a community ban or a topic ban. As per that, I suppose you should change this proposal to community ban. -Abhishikt (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Addresses the real problem: plagiarism. Sidesteps the political vendetta. Overall, fair, and balanced. – Lionel 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Misplaced Pages. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. In line with the above proposal, User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who voted above in support of a topic ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety, Qaisar Bagh) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for the newspaper of WikiProject Christianity, Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators. I also would look forward to being assigned a mentor to review my edits. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The plagiarism is one of the the main issues, along with POV pushing, edit warring, cherry picking... This proposal fails to address issues other than plagiarism. I've never seen that a user whose topic ban is debated, comes to ANI and actually votes to oppose his own topic ban. This "vote" is just another proof of manipulative tactics he uses to obstruct consensus and impose its views. This is hilarious.

But, I'm willing to support both, topic ban and this proposal.--В и к и T 03:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; plagiarism is not the main problem. Plagiarism certainly is a Bad Thing, but it's just one of the tools used in anupam's crusade. The crusade as a whole should be stopped, rather than just blocking off one of the tools used and turning a blind eye to the rest. Did lionel look at the diffs before making this proposal? A topic ban would stop the plagiarism and all the other bad stuff too. bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate that anupam still claims "I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well" when there is clear evidence of the opposite; and that anupam's comments here fail to address the main problem whilst pretending it's a mere content dispute. Nobody's proposing a topic ban for having a different POV; the topic ban is to stop deception, plagiarism, distortion, sockpuppetry, and so on. Would anupam like some more diffs? I realise the previous set of diffs was written off as a personal attack, but I think that evidence should always be given a second chance. bobrayner (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on two fronts: first, plagiarism is a serious issue and the fact that this has been going on so long unchecked despite repeated attempts to clarify this with Anupam leads me to believe that this would be completely ineffective, especially if that mentor where to have any relationship to the normally reasonable editors who can't seem to view Anupam uncritically. Second, plagiarism is not the only issue - there is a massive problem with misuse of sources that is pretty typical of the Conservapedia editing style - without a topic ban Anupam runs the danger of doing significant damage to the encyclopedia. eldamorie (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think Anupam could cause further problems if this proposal is enacted. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose #2 as a timesink which is unlikely to address the more serious issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fully support - addresses the real problem (close paraphrasing and plagiarism) without using it as a coatrack for "tyranny of the majority" or POV-pushing of another sort; remember what they say, "two wrongs maketh not a thing right". St John Chrysostom _τω 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would be huge waste of admin's efforts as Anupam exhibits WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT(which is proved again in this thread). -Abhishikt (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Honeypot

Out of interest, is there an easily enumerable list of editors who have an identifiable record of rote defense (particularly out of the blue) for Anupam? Given the abundance of evidence presented it stands to reason that the admin corps should be watching the lot of them for future incidents even after Anupam's well-deserved topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this not a recurrent problem with certain wikiprojects, which has been discussed on several occasions? Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci yes, it is. Regarding Chris' inquiry, I'd rather not list names at this time. If this behavior continues after sanctioning individual users, we may have to reopen the issue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List your names and the violations related to the accounts or move along - this sort of opinionated blabber is nothing more than that - Youreallycan 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, do list your names. aprock (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the users that have large contributions to the topic and associated articles - they are all involved and opinionated and conflicted - unlike the posts above I am not looking for any administrative action against these users just that uninvolved editors are aware that such a conflicted commentary is possible in this report.Youreallycan 21:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As I have pointed out before, most of the users who wish to ban me held the position I did not support in this RfC/content dispute. Bobrayner (talk · contribs), Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs), Abhishikt (talk · contribs), Wikiwind (talk · contribs), and eldamorie (talk · contribs), among others, all participated in that content dispute, and voted to "support" the splitting of the article (which never occurred by the way; the article was simply deleted, redirected and none of the content was ever moved). Coincidentally (or not), the same group of editors, magically showed up at this RfC, where they all coincidentally (or not) voted for the same Draft (Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), Abhishikt (talk · contribs), et al.). These individuals consistently all edit the same series of articles, demonstrating a partisanship here. The refusal to acknowledge that many of the individuals here hold a POV in what is actually a content dispute is outrageous and will jeopardize the policy of WP:NPOV that this encyclopedia should uphold. --Anupam 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Toilet bowl

I would also like to see a list of anti-Anupam editors who follow him around, get their asses beat at RFCs, and then run to ANI to get him censured. For all the accusations against editors who support Anupam, the editors who regularly criticize him have appeared here in record speed.

This effort to try to chill OPPOSE votes in this discussion by threatening enhanced scrutiny and review of contribution history, and challenging editors who support Anupam and calling them meatpuppets is a violation of AGF and is despicable. – Lionel 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's something that amuses me a little bit about "is a violation of AGF" followed immediately by "is despicable." Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"for every 1 pro-Anupam editor, there are 2 anti-Anupam editors following him around trying to destroy him" is not a violation of AGF? You are assuming that everyone supporting the topic ban are "following him around trying to destroy him". As far as I am aware I have had no previous interaction with Anupam. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Toilet bowl" as a header? Really? Perhaps you should back off for a moment before commenting further on this case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin: as a card-carrying member of the Department of Fun it is my job to be amusing.

@Saddhiyama: in the edit sum I did not suggest that "everyone" supporting topic ban is trying to destroy him. "Back off"? Not when I'm on a roll... Not when I have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it... – Lionel 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you are on a roll; How about addressing some of the pretty damning diffs shown of Anupam's behaviour. None of your comments in this ANI threads have addressed that. How about clarify how editing "atheistic articles from a Christian perspective" is a positive thing? Edit: I see Lionel is otherwise occupied on the liberal bias which is Global warming IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, IRWolfie, if you think my purpose here is to answer to your beck and call you are sadly mistaken. I edit what and where I want to edit. I check my watchlist when I damn well feel like checking my watchlist. And if I don't jump high enough or fast enough for you, well aint that a shame. When you start signing my paycheck, then you can write BS like the above. Until then, get off my back. – Lionel 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for assuming good faith, lionel! It would be nice if we could move away from tribal allegiances and actually make decisions based on evidence. I have no intention to destroy an editor with an opposing POV (I disagree with lots of other editors in lots of other areas); I merely wish to stop the pov-pushing crusade of deception, plagiarism, and cheating. Rather than making this a partisan thing, perhaps we could discuss the problematic diffs? It would be good to look at the evidence. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello Lionel...? Are you there? I was kinda hoping we could discuss the evidence of long-term deception, plagiarism, sockpuppetry, abuse of sources &c without it being reframed as a partisan battle. When you're "on a roll" and "have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it", perhaps you could take a little time off from kneejerk defence of anupam and spare a little time for the evidence? I can bring lots more diffs if you'd like. If this section is only here to sling insults and ignore the actual problem editing, maybe I should just hat it instead. Would you like to discuss some of the evidence, Lionel? bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • H_e_l_l_o B_o_b... Let me ask you something. Do I appear to be some kind of wikigeek? Is this the kind of vibe that I give off? You know, one of those guys who clicks "my watchlist" every 30 seconds, edits for days at a time sucking down cases of Pit Bulls to stay awake, eats nothing but Pringles and pees into an empty Pepsi liter bottle so they never have to leave the keyboard? Well I am not that guy. I edit when I feel like it. Questions????

But to your point. I am eager to discuss the so called evidence of alleged issues. Post what you think is the most egregious trangression and I'll help you to understand how ludicrous this whole thing is. Go ahead, give me your best shot... Bob... – Lionel

If you're eager to discuss it, then please do. Various editors have posted diffs which show a prolonged pattern of disruptive behavior. You are free to discuss any. You do not need anyone's permission to discuss them. If you're looking for a specific place to start, you could take another shot at discussing the edit warring over a span of 2 years described here: . The last time you tried to discuss it, you changed the subject to blocks. aprock (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, if you say you're short of time, I sympathise - I completely understand that you made many lengthy posts defending an ideological ally, and trying to change the subject, and insulting opponents, but didn't have time to actually look at the evidence. This is just a convenient subset of diffs. There are other sets if you want them. Since there seems to have been some difficulty reading any of the many diffs presented above, I won't hat this list - don't want to create any further obstacles.

• 21:00, 27 June Turnsalso account is created at a time when anupam really needs support; somebody else has proposed splitting up anupam's essay.
• 21:37, 27 June Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue.
• 22:05, 27 June Turnsalso !votes "Keep; oppose split", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of[REDACTED] markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage!
• 22:14, 27 June After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extended that courtesy to any other users in the last year.
• In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by Fountainviewkid, whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community.
• 01:35, 6 July Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session.
• 05:32, 8 July Lionelt gives the sockpuppet a warm welcome; inviting them to join WikiProject Conservatism. Turnsalso hasn't actually edited any "conservative" articles, or written any content at all, but they *did* vote the right way in an RfC.
• 03:22, 13 July Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes.
• 08:07, 13 July Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote)
• 08:29, 13 July Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article.
• 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
• 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
• 18:49, 13 July Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. One minute after that, Anupam edits the article, then a few minutes later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso.
• 19:40, 13 July Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV.
• 20:03, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert.
• 20:16, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold.
• 18:21, 14 July Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits.
• 18:29, 14 July Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "revert until the issue is settled".
• 18:32 14 July Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits.
• 18:36, 14 July Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's.
• 14:14, 15 July Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry.
• 17:47, 15 July For turnsalso, reverting Mann Jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns.
• 18:01, 15 July Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel.
• 20:19, 15 July Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval).
• 03:25, 20 July Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors.
• Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully opposes a little later.
• 20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra support of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam.
• 23:43, 18 August Turnsalsos directly supports anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth?
• Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping anupam's preferred wording. All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes.
• IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. 16 minutes later, Turnsalso is there to support anupam.
• 19:33, 25 August After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution.
• Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, turnsalso supports.
• 21:04 25 August Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud.
• 23:27, 12 September Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam.
• 16:06, 16 September Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae.
• 18:01, 17 September Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word.
• 02:25, 20 September 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that Anupam has made. The revert is repeated at 02:47 and 02:53. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape 3RR.
• 05:46, 20 September: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters.
• Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid 3RR.
• 16:31, 20 September turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason.
• 16:59, 20 September bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry.
• 40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam appears to acknowledge the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and bizarrely refactors other people's comments to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary acknowledges it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried.
• 18:51, 20 September Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier.
• 19:04, 20 September Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit.
• 20:06, 21 September Turnsalso opposes the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap.
• Finally, on 03 October, Lionelt offers more support on the sockpuppet's talkpage - because the sock has been through such a hard time, what with having to constantly support anupam's proposals and repeat anupam's reverts.

It must be painful to realise that one of your favourite editors is just a pov-pushing sock. Or did you know all along? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lionel...? Are you there? I was kinda hoping we could discuss the evidence of long-term deception, plagiarism, sockpuppetry, abuse of sources &c without it being reframed as a partisan battle. When you're "on a roll" and "have so much to say and unlimited diskspace in which to say it", perhaps you could take a little time off from kneejerk defence of anupam and spare a little time for the evidence? I can bring lots more diffs if you'd like. If this section is only here to sling insults and ignore the actual problem editing, maybe I should just hat it instead. Would you like to discuss some of the evidence, Lionel? bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would only advise Lionel that the "unlimited space" phrase around here refers to content for the encyclopedia. WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:TE apply to off-topic and gratuitously less-than-civil comments on noticeboards as well. About the only thing that I believe this subthred demonstrates is that Lionel is himself driven by POV in his edits here. If that is the case, then he should perhaps take a break from further off-topic, tendentious editing here, and perhaps limit his comments to those which actually deal with matters of substance regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Any opposition to community ban?

The only formal proposal above is a topic ban with a loosely worded extension. Yet, a large number of editors (including myself) have indicated either a preference or ambivalence to a community ban. I only recall seeing one editor whose preference was instead a TB. The thread has been open a while, so it may be best to simply discuss this concurrently instead of opening a new proposal. Does anyone have any opposition to a community ban at this time? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Totally excessive - hes a decent creator of articles - monitoring (as proposed above) is sufficient. Youreallycan 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support per my early comment in support of of the topic ban. I am sorry to say that I suspect a topic-ban will be wiki-lawyered and the wp:drama will continue. I would support an extended ban (as previously described) as my next recommendation, and a narrowly-defined topic ban as the least desirable option (but still better than no action). Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support: The situation is clearly hopeless. Anupam will never be able to be a constructive WP editor, as he has overiding conflicting priorities and a fundamentally dishonest personality. The fact that his disruptive editing has been allowed to continue so long is an embarrassment to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is an embarrassment to the project is partisan attacking comments like yours above (calling someones personality fundamentally dishonest - is a clear personal attack that you should be blocked for - you don't want to know what I think about your personality, and even if you did - WP:NPA would restrict me.) and threads like this one - attempting to blackball a contributory user rather than point them to assistance and refocus them to more beneficial area for contributing. - Youreallycan 16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's been here for 7 years... there have been numerous ANI reports, numerous warnings (from admins in many cases). There is clearly a problem, and he's clearly been given ample opportunities to improve. Above, he's still denying there's any issue at all, and instead insisting that this is an attempt to censor him due to his religion. If you think he can be "refocused" where these problems won't continue to arise, how would you propose we go about doing that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect explanation of the problem - every legitimate criticism about Anupam's editing get's reframed by his supporters as a partisan attack. This is not about ideology, this is largely about repeated failure to understand how to use sources, how to interpret sources, and how not to commit plagiarism, despite repeated attempts to instruct them in these issues, coupled with constant denial that there is even an issue until it looks like they will be blocked - but nothing ever changes. eldamorie (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I initially wavered, thinking a topic ban would be sufficient, but anupam's continued lies and continued refusal to accept the problems - instead trying to frame opposition as partisan - have made it clear to me that a community ban would be the better option. We need to stop the lies, the deception, the copyvio, and the distortion - and it's increasingly clear that only a community ban will achieve this. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose any ban not specifically limited by an amount of time, I have explained my reasons in previous comments. In my opinion, having Anupam monitored (as proposed above) is enough to prevent further problems (since I do not see how he could edit in an unconstructive manner, while being constantly under the risk of blocking from those monitoring him). And since he has done useful contributions in the past, including new articles (such as Erasmus of Arcadia and Works of Piety), I believe he should be allowed to continue editing (at least at a specified date). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cody7777777 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Strong oppose I agree with Cody7777777. Justice007 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: if we're going to community ban editors with clean block records who have bouts of plagiarism and been reported to 3RR a couple times the only editors who will be left are me, Cody and Jimbo. – Lionel 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC) And while I think the quality of the content would dramatically improve, the three of us would be hard pressed to serve the 365 million readers who come here looking for fair and balanced information.– Lionel 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Did you actually just use a FoxNews slogan as an argument? Oh, I get it -- you're trying to mock that version of oppose arguments. Well done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- really, as above, it's perfectly plain that we'll have continued disruption from this editor, so a stringent preventive action is necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I base this support purely on the behavior displayed in this ANI report. Anupam has repeatedly refused to accept community input on disruptive behavior, including repeated examples of WP:IDNHT in the sections above, and edit warring in this thread detailed below. There is little point in preferring a topic ban for Anupam when he feels that his only transgression is that he has occasionally plagiarized. aprock (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't like "voting" on these sorts of things, and I believe that Anupam means well on some level and that he's genuinely hurt by the prospect of sanctions. But to me, this is a classic case in which we should politely but clearly ask someone not to edit here.

  It's frankly maddening or impossible to deal with Anupam when it comes to disputed content. He edits (and reverts) at a very high volume; he doesn't listen to or engage others' arguments; much of his editing is transparently ideologically driven; and his use of sourcing is careless at best and outright dishonest at worst.

  In a best-case scenario, we would need to ensure that his edits undergo a careful and exhaustive outside review for plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources. But even when those behaviors are identified, it's a huge and exhausting uphill battle to get him to acknowledge them, much less correct them. We just don't have the excess of editorial time and effort to provide the oversight that Anupam has proven he needs.

  I know that view is distressing to Anupam, and I honestly regret causing him any anguish, but when it comes down it his editing really isn't a good fit for this project, in my opinion, and we're not doing him any favors by stringing him along further. MastCell  22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Biased and partisan contributions is the current standard position at en[REDACTED] - restricting any single user for such a claim is amusing to say the least. - Youreallycan 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to crack down a bit harder on partisan editing, but that's actually more of an afterthought in this particular case. I do think that Anupam's editing is profoundly ideological, but that's an aggravating factor, not the main basis for my view that he should be restricted. The main problems are 1) serial misuse of sources; and 2) the inability to engage others' arguments or concerns, which renders any serious effort at dispute resolution useless and leads me to believe that there is no real prospect for addressing issue #1. MastCell  22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Serial plagirism, NPOV editing, IDHT behavior, apologies without meaning because they're contradicted by subsequent behavior; what, exactly, are we giving up by banning this editor? Not much, I think. 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

You claim "Serial plagiarism, " but there are no blocks at all for that - you question "what, exactly, are we giving up by banning this editor?" - they have created many many articles. - Youreallycan 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of other editors who created many articles, yet also were disruptive in their editing. They, too, were ultimately banned, albeit after much consumption of other editors' time. Learning from the past is a good thing (and, sadly, the editor in question seems to not be able to do so. I also would note, again, that accusing those of !voting here of being biased against the editor or his supposed ideology is not a good thing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Prefer TB + monitoring + possibly mentoring. SÆdon 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support hitting Anupam and Lionelt with a frying pan, but more to the point, Anupam's lack of willingness to accept the issues, let alone change them, makes it seem that a ban would be the cleanest way out of this, especially considering how much time and effort has already been expended on the fellow, and how much more would be were other alternatives followed. What could the other editors be doing instead of dealing with all this drama? — Isarra ༆ 09:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Too much time IDHT on DR boards. An empty block log is not a validation of a user's long term pattern of contributions, rather it's a sign no individual edit has risen to the level of disruption required immediate preventative action. Nobody Ent 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A clear example where a Draconian solution is of no value. And of nugatory vslue to Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anupam has made and continues to make valuable contributions to the Indian wikispace, a community ban would just make this space even more of a cesspool of single-purpose accounts. I also believe this discussion will likely spawn a change in behaviour and I would be happy to help any admins in offering Anupam constructive criticism in dealing with issues.Pectore 13:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first choice His attitude towards copyright violation is perplexing to say the least and we can not expect him to clean the mess he's set up here, so I don't think there's much point in anything further now, all good faith with regards to his being cooperative etc have been eliminated. —SpacemanSpiff 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support repeated plagiarism, and misuse of sources to push a POV, combined with a complete inability to actually recognise the seriousness of the issues, suggest to me that Anupam is simply unsuitable as a Misplaced Pages contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources to push a POV? Or do you mean that by banning me, you can violate WP:NPOV by making unchecked edits such as this one? I suggest you re-evaluate your position and acknowledge your biases. Thanks, Anupam 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the continuous attempts to reframe everything as an adversarial POV battle where both sides are at fault, rather than face up to the serious and long-term policy violations by one editor, reflects more badly on you than on His Grumpiness. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of community ban as per my above comments. St John Chrysostom _τω 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support I prefer topic ban, so that Anupam can continue contributing to the articles where his non-NPOV won't be an issue. But I won't object to community ban. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly per Mastcell. Other editors who contribute positively without engaging in tendentious-style of editing end up leaving the article space due to sheer exhaustion. That is not helpful to the project, particularly when the source of the issue is what needs to be addressed. The project resources dedicated towards monitoring/mentoring would be seriously disproportionate to the amount and standard of work that needs to be done in the article space, and even after all of that, it seems like we are prolonging what is (likely to be) essentially inevitable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's obvious that the answer to the question that people are responding to here is "Yes". HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support The conclusion is sad but inescapable: Anupam is here to push an agenda, with his grab-bag of polemical tricks. Misplaced Pages rules are just for getting around. Appeals and admonitions are for burying in thick creamy dollops of elaborate civility. Going back to the discussion on the suicide article above: "In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Misplaced Pages for a while." In other words: it's getting hot in here let's shut this down now. Presumably to return the with the same-old: plagarism, POV-pushing, source-mangling. Just in time, though, Lionel and co turn up to play nope-nothing-wrong-here tag, morale is restored and Anupam decides to tough it out with yet another round of La-La-La-Can't-hear-you-kind-sirs because all he's going to get is some absurdly unworkable topic ban to appeal/stretch/evade. I too, am aware that there are editors-for-hire operating here and that some unaccredited institutions give academic credits to students to contribute the house viewpoint to certain sites and blogs on religious and associated topics. But whatever it is that drives Anupam's dauntless devotion to his editing, it is such a shame that he will not, cannot, convert his zeal and abilities towards constructive contributions here. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support There is no excuse for plagiarism - especially not after the issues associated with it have been repeatedly explained. Lack of prior blocks is largely irrelevant as Anupam has gamed the system with their politesse - which should make it even more clear why a community ban is necessary. Far too much time has been wasted repairing the damage this editor has done. If we don't community ban editors who are so transparent about their purpose as editors - to advocate for a specific point of view to the expense of any sort of honest presentation of sources - then why do we even have the procedure? eldamorie (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support No sign that there will be any change. The editor already has a forum, that being Conservapedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
• Strong support. I initially opened this discussion to gauge opinions on the matter, not as a separate proposal. However, since then, Anupam's behavior on this very thread has worsened. His only recent contributions have been edit warring, accusing others of bad faith and bias, and IDHT denials of wrongdoing. If he can't keep his act together even during an ANI thread discussing sanctions, I don't see any hope of his behavior ever improving. I also see no hope of short-term resolution to these problems in light of the fact that he continually professes he's been right all along. Furthermore, his commitment to pleading for a definite time frame on any sanctions leads me to believe that he hopes to "wait it out", without his behavior improving. A topic ban of any duration will not resolve any of these problems, which only strengthens my support for an indefinite (not necessarily infinite) community ban. If Anupam can ever demonstrate that he understands the issues presented here, he may be allowed back at that time. Until then, he is simply unfit for our collaborative, academic setting, and allowing him to continue here will only serve to damage the encyclopedia and drive away productive editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As a note, I would like to point out that the behavior User:Mann jess refers to was done correctly. In fact, the reviewing administrator pointed out that User:Bobrayner was wrong in adding a false notice in every location where User:Cody7777777 commented; it surprises me that User:Mann jess does not speak out against this behavior. Or does it? User:Mann jess, like most of the users who showed up here within minutes, possibly due to off site canvassing by User:Bobrayer, took part in a content dispute/RfC in which he held the opposite position as mine. Like many other users have stated (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, Exhibit Three), this is an attempt to get rid of a constructive editor in order that WP:NPOV might not be upheld. To the reviewing administrator, thank you for reading this comment. With regards, Anupam 05:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, stop this. Seriously. You know full well how I got here. It's absolutely transparent that you're lying about others canvassing only to mask your actual canvassing. It's also funny that you are happy to revert the removal of entirely off-topic religious attacks with an edit summary like "don't delete the comments of others", but when it comes to people you disagree with, you'll delete their comments from ANI and revert repeatedly to keep them out, breaking 3rr in the process. These things are egregious alone, even without the other major issues, but I'm only describing the last 2 things you've done, inside this ANI thread alone! If you're going to blatantly lie to me and about me, then frankly I'm done responding to you. This behavior is deplorable. Honesty is not optional.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I understand with clarity that I have broken the plagiarism policy at Misplaced Pages. For me, the problem should be to avoid close paraphrasing, even if I provide a reference. User:Moreschi suggested the alternative of working with a group of administrators to monitor my work. Most of individuals who wish to ban me are the same individuals who participated in this RfC and differed from mine and many others' view there. As such, this is a content dispute and I feel I should not be blocked for holding different views than these editors. I have created countless articles (e.g. Works of Piety) and have contributed to many more since 2006, never having been blocked. In addition, I am the editor for Ichthus. Moreover, I have helped several new editors out with editing the encyclopedia. Whenever there are content disputes, I take the time to discuss the issue, and start an RfC to gain input from the community if the dispute is unresolved. I always accept the decisions of the RfCs as well. I know that many users here do appreciate my work and I would miss editing my favorite topics, as well as the friends that I have made here too. I recognize the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issue now and hope that I can improve in this area by working with administrators, rather than being topic banned. I also sincerely apologize for these actions and to the editors that have been hurt by my actions. I hope that the community will have compassion on me and will give me the opportunity to improve. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam 05:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• By "countless articles", I think you actually mean 47, of which 3 are currently at AfD, 1 is blanked as copyright violation, a number of others were just created as coatracks. Those numbers may change as other editors pay closer attention to your edits. Just for information, my count is 197, 0, 0, and 0 respectively. However, article creation is an irrelevance; it does not excuse the wide range of policy violations documented in this thread. bobrayner (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, in the light of the new evidence and the events at this thread itself, I'd support this too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Mastcell, Aprock and others. I did not support the community ban until now, but after all events here and especially Anupam's own comments, a support ban.--В и к и T 07:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was initially only in favour of a topic ban, but this ANI thread has demonstrated a complete inability for Anupam to accept any problem with his editing and has instead tried to mis-characterize the whole thing as a content dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support The longer this thread goes on, the worse Anupam's behavior. Let's get this over with, already. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm right there with Akhilleus. a13ean (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This editor has - in the service of a political agenda - acted with disregard of this site's core policies for years. His behavior in this trainwreck of a thread is an exponent of this disregard. Despite multiple instances of feedback and criticism he has not deviated from a battleground attitude. Skinwalker (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Anupam does not edit with Misplaced Pages's readers' best interest in mind. Rather, he edits to push an activist agenda. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Enough is enough: it is abundantly clear that nothing will change while this editor is able to use Misplaced Pages for POV promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support and long overdue. This editor is not here to work on an encyclopedia, this editor is here to push an agenda, clear and simple. And the people who magically show up to support him ought to be next up for discussion, as they exhibit the same behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This editor may be here to settle an old score. See . – Lionel 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Anupam's plagiarism and abuse of sourcing is the issue here and so far the only defense has been egregious personal attacks and hyperbole. It's not a content dispute if you're not willing to discuss the actual content. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Two month ban

As Anupam has never been blocked or otherwise sanctioned before we shouldn't assume that a time limited block wouldn't work. 60 days is probably long enough to get his attention. Except in extreme cases indefinite bans should be reserved for cases when lesser measures have proven ineffective. At the expiry of his block Anupam should be informed that if he messes up again the next block will be for two years. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the community agrees that I have been disruptive, I will accept a ban for sixty days. I acknowledge that I have been wrong in some areas and will use the time off to reflect, and after the period has expired, I will be a productive editor. If I mess up again, I will be banned for two years. Thank you for giving me another opportunity. With regards, Anupam 23:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I am willing to extend a ban for more than two months if that is the desire of the community as long as a time period is specified, granted that I will be allowed to return as a full editor when that time is expired. Moreover, I am willing to have an administrator(s) or mentor(s) monitor me. Thanks, Anupam 01:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Regretfully, as too little, too late. I am reminded of other disruptive editors who, when cornered by an upcoming block or ban, agree to a short-term block followed by a promise of a longer-term (but not indefinite) block if they misbehave. Enforcing such "agreements" is no less time-consuming and angst-filled later than it is now. Finally, per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Duration_of_bans, "Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site". Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:JoeSperrazza, what length would be acceptable for you? One year? Two years? Five years? I am willing to compromise on this issue if it is the community's decision that I should be either topic or community banned I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam 02:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe an indefinite Community Ban is appropriate. Per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions, an editor who has been Community banned can always appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to their talk page (assuming the latter is still available and has not been abused - I would think a repetition of the incivility and personal attacks shown by the editor and his/her supporters here in this discussion would lead to loss of talk page privileges, too). My concern with a time-limited ban is the likelihood it would lead to more bad behavior followed by yet another time consuming community discussion muddied by the kinds of discussions that have occurred here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Far too little. Indefinite or community are the only acceptable options, especially since it's clear from his responses on this page that he has no intention whatsever to cease his disruptive behavior. Sorry, but his apologies and promises to improve are insincere and empty. He clearly has an overiding POV mission that includes disruptive behavior like plagarism and sockpuppetry, and that is never going to change. It precludes him from being a productive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a long-term problem which has defied previous attempts at resolution. A 60 day ban means that in 61 days the lies, distortion, and vote-stacking will ramp up again. Anupam has avoided sanctions before, because they have unquestioning support from certain editors, and anupam hasn't been blocked for editwarring because anupam knows exactly where the 3RR threshold is - and when they reach it, an IP address or SPA takes the reins and performs exactly the same reverts. That is not a reason for leniency. I'd rather not repeat drama-threads (like this thread); even if we charitably assume that the next batch of pov-pushing content gets fixed after another protracted RfC, it wastes the time of good editors and burns them out. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your concern of "and when they reach it, an IP address or SPA takes the reins and performs exactly the same reverts" can be conveniently dealt with through the current sockpuppet identification process. If he uses socks during this ban, then he likely does not have the requisite good faith to use Misplaced Pages and can be banned then.Pectore 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I first presented evidence of sockpuppetry, it was repeatedly removed by anupam's favourite administrator; and supporters could appear like magic. In future, assuming anupam remained at large - well, even if an SPI doesn't get shut down prematurely by somebody who got an urgent email, an SPI only adds one thing beyond the already-visible diffs - a checkuser. I'm sure anupam has sufficient wit to use a different IP and user-agent string, in which case a checkuser result is likely to be a technical negative, and anupam gains another defensive asset (ie. "I was exonerated so all those diffs are a baseless personal attack"). bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - A long wikibreak should give him enough time to digest the material presented here in a constructive manner.Pectore 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Although, as I said before, I believe monitoring Anupam is enough, a temporary ban is more reasonable than an indefinite ban. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - simply getting his attention (which you already have) doesn't really address the problem. It's merely a start, and frankly, that's insufficient at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban on the basis of anything but copyvio. I have not only contempt for Conservapedia and its standards, but a feeling of utter disgust at the trends in American life that have brought it into being and that are expressed there (unless, of course, it is, as some have suggested, a parody site). Since my view on most subjects with which he is concerned is entirely opposite to his, I can not possibly support banning him based on his POV editing in these issues, either as a topic ban or a community ban. I think the only people who can !vote to do so without being affected by bias are those who have at least some minimal sympathy with his views. Plagiarism is another matter, and it would clarify things to have it discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This appears to be merely coincidental with Anupam's wish to take a break from wikipedia: . IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for User:Lionelt

• Note, however, that, as has happened on previous occasions and as noted below, Lionelt has yet again used wikiproject noticeboards to "dial a tag-team". Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that myself. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly the first time there have been concerns about lionelt canvassing - or enabling other disruptive editors who just happen to push the right POV. However, this thread is already a hydra. We could, perhaps, revisit this later. Lionel may be busy at the moment, anyway; I was hoping that they could discuss some diffs of anupam's sockpuppeting but they've suddenly gone quiet. bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Addition of 1RR

Since a number editors have expressed the opinion that a topic ban doesn't go far enough while a community ban may go too far, I propose that, in addition to any other sanctions, a 1RR restriction be applied to Anupam in order to address the 3RR boundary pushing and civil edit-warring.

• Support As proposer. Mojoworker (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  Support, as an alternative to the community ban, and in addition to topic ban.--В и к и T 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)(After new evidence, I now support community ban.--В и к и T 07:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

• Comment If a topic ban is what the community decides, I would accept a 1RR restriction granted that both the topic ban and the 1RR restriction are set to a specified time period (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc.). I also think that 1RR without the topic ban would be a better idea. With regards, Anupam 16:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Possibly in replacement of the topic ban, certainly in replacement of a community ban.Pectore 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support May help to curb problems before they start. This is in addition to a topic ban, not as an alternative proposal. SÆdon 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As a solution fr a non-problem. The issue is not reverts - hence 1RR is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious. You say the "The issue is not reverts" but there is evidence of regular edit-warring (anupam surely knows where the threshold of WP:3RR is - they go there often - then sometimes an associate performs the next few reverts). Could you clarify your comment? bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The stated issue ab initio was plagiarism - I read all of the above discussion, and it is clear that this was what some editors appeared upset about. I trust the actual discussion is clear thereon. IIRC, your stated concerns were "pov-pushing" and "canvassing" which are also unrelated to EW assertions. "Sock-puppetry" is a matter for SPI, and not a strong issue here. And your liberal assertion of WP:TAGTEAM also does not belong here. And makes it apparent that the issue is not EW but a matter now of animus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly, I must disagree with you again; The stated issue ab initio was that viriditas was being mean to anupam. Then anupam got hit by the boomerang, and a variety of other problematic editing was pointed out; that's how AN/I works. Now, I'd be happy to provide more diffs of anupam hammering the revert button, if the diffs above are not sufficient to persuade you; I could even forward a spreadsheet (it's not hard to export 15000 contribs into Excel and then run a little VBA looking for clusters of reverts). Editwarring and tagteaming was mentioned previously; if you wish to give carte blanche for editwarring because you didn't notice the last time editwarring was pointed out, I think it's unlikely that we can have a productive discussion. bobrayner (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I stick to my understanding of the issue. And if if wish to assert socking -- SPI is THATAWAY-->. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Saedon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. St John Chrysostom _τω 17:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I, too, don't see reverts as being part of the problem. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Here's the latest example; 5RR at AN/I, removing somebody else's (valid) warnings of canvassing. I'm sure some !voters will still say that edit-warring isn't an issue... &c. bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It does not address the issue of POV pushing which Anupam has engaged in on the talk page i.e frivolous RfCs and constant misrepresentations etc; it's occurred numerous times even just in this ANI thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator

Please bear in mind Lionel's canvassing here. "The wolves are circling", indeed. One of anupam's defenders has admitted coming here following that canvassing. Also, I do not know how many emails were sent, but that seems the most likely trigger for an admin to hide some embarrassing evidence on conservapedia. bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind User:Bobrayner, the proposer of the ban, has made partisan statements, holding what can be characterized as a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In this example, User:Bobrayner states: "I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade." In this example, he states: "If you are unable to voluntarily end your crusade, the community will end it for you." User:Bobrayner, in a comment to User:Lionelt, who opposed the topic ban, stated: "Perhaps you forgot to respond over at WP:AN/I; I realise that you're quite busy writing about Ronald Reagan." User:Bobrayner also intentionally worded the proposal with his own bias, rather than neutrally, thus predisposing voters to his viewpoint and therefore biasing the outcome. I had kindly requested him to change the wording but he ignored the message, stating "Considering the long-term dishonesty, I don't think that adult supervision is sufficient." Coincidentally, User:Bobrayner, like many of the individuals who voted in support of a ban, participated in this RfC/content dispute, holding the view opposite to mine, among others, some of whom have commented above. I would encourage the closing administrator to keep in mind comments such as this one from experienced editors. Yes, I admit that I have violated the plagiarism/paraphrasing policy, albeit unintentionally and am willing to work on that. I also admit that some of the community has found my editing, especially on controversial articles, to be disruptive, which I did not intend either. However, I am willing to work with administrators and other users in my work for the future. I appreciate the closing administrator taking the time to read this message. Thanks, Anupam 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If any editor is tempted to take those quotes at face value, I would invite them to have a look at my talkpage and see the discussion in context. If any other editor thinks that any comment there is false, just point it out and I'll cheerfully back it up with diffs. Now, anupam, could you please stop the walls of text? This section was for pointing out the canvassing, not for repeating the same old arguments. bobrayner (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In case topic ban is chosen, let me list topics, which I feel needs to be included in the ban. People supporting the topic ban, feel free to add/modify the list. -Abhishikt (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Religion topics
2. Atheism topics
3. Creationism/Intelligent Design related topics
4. Science topics (e.g. Big Bang, Evolution)
5. Social and policitally controversial topics (e.g. Creation-Evolution controversy)

I might add that while many of the editors here have criticized Conservapedia, users on this thread (namely User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:IRWolfie-) have added external links on Misplaced Pages to an editable encyclopedia aimed at criticizing Christianity, RationalWiki, despite the fact that WP:ELNO states that "links to open wikis" are not permitted. According to the Misplaced Pages article on Rational Wiki, 'According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, "From there, RationalWiki members monitor Conservapedia, particularly on the page "Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?", and—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism".' Both User:Bobrayner and User:Abhishikt have defamed Conservapedia on the List of online encyclopedias article as well. Not surprisingly, these are the very individuals who would like to see me banned from editing. Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Just use common sense about Conservapedia. A look at Conservapedia articles about Misplaced Pages, Evolution, Atheism,Abortion or Obama would prove my point. -Abhishikt (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add the links; I restored them because the reasoning for your removal was incorrect. There is no requirement that external links be reliable sources. After you removed the material for the third time you cited WP:ELNO but it says to avoid links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. I also note that although you tried to remove the link 3 times (2 reverts), you never took the issue to the talk page. Rationalwiki is not aimed at criticizing Christianity as is clear from their main page: . The article linked to for "Secular Religion" is not even about Christianity and makes no criticism of Christianity, but lists what some believe are secular religions. You were asked to take the issue to the talk page, you did not. As an aside, I think most people with common sense would agree that conservapedia is the antithesis of a good encyclopedia but that has absolutely no bearing here. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Proposal

The various comments above by many users support some kind of sanction on Anupam. Anupam is to take a two year Wikibreak to reflect on WP:NPOV and understanding the meaning of paraphrasing/plagiarism. In addition, he is to acknowledge that the community has recognized his editing as being disruptive. After two years, Anupam is invited to return again as an editor and work in a constructive manner. At this time, administrators will monitor his edits to ensure that he adheres to Misplaced Pages policy. 21:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know who proposes this (you might want to fix your signature), but they seem not to recognise most of the problems. Plagiarism is just one aspect. An unconditional return in 2 years - without recognising the wide range of problems - merely means that the distorting, cheating, lying, and pov-pushing will be postponed for 2 years. I don't want them postponed; I want them stopped. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, it sounds like you're proposing a 2 year ban on yourself. Why? Chances are that you'll be topic banned but not community banned so why all of a sudden propose a much more extreme measure? SÆdon 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, thank you for your concern. I would not mind the topic ban personally, and it seems like consensus supports the topic ban at the moment, even though there are individuals who oppose that, even. The problem with the topic ban is that it does not specify a length of time. I would like to improve and work on the encyclopedia but I am doubtful that if I ask for the topic ban to be revoked after some time, that it will ever be. Furthermore, I feel that I have been very misrepresented above. The thread of the topic ban states "long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on." I never intentionally tried to deceive anyone - that's why I always tried to talk through problems. Furthermore, I am not User:Turnsalso, or any of the other IP addresses that the proposing user stated I was. I kindly asked him to reword his topic ban proposal so that it was more neutral but he did not listen. I do acknowledge that I have violated the plagiarism policy, and that many editors have found me to be disruptive, though I did not intend any of those things. I am frustrated right now because I feel attacked and very misrepresented and the attack-like wording of the proposal does not give participating users an opportunity to make a neutral decision. I have worked hard here since 2006 and have tried to be congenial with everyone, including those I disagreed with. Now, many of those individuals want me gone completely, without having a chance to improve, even with some guidance. What do you think? If some kind of ban is to be implemented, I would prefer the topic ban, although I would want an administrator to give a definite time. I am willing to improve and work with others; I have created nice articles, like Works of Piety, about Methodism, which I would like to improve in the future. I would rather be forced to take a two year leave than to never be able to edit on some of these interesting topics on Misplaced Pages. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. With regards, Anupam 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Saedon, on second thought, I do see what you're saying. There is no consensus for a community ban at this point. I do agree with my previous post however, that I have transgressed against the plagiarism policy and that some of the editors here find my editing to be problematic. It looks like consensus is favoring a topic ban against me at this point, although there are a significant amount of users who did oppose this as well. I would accept a topic ban of a limited time period (one year, etc.) in good faith. Thanks, Anupam 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest six months. Nobody Ent 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Nobody Ent, thanks for the suggestion, which I do like and prefer. However, above, User:Alessandra Napolitano, suggested two months and that received some opposes, as being too short of a time period. Since some individuals think that the leave should be longer, I extended the time period to two years. If many users here find that to be too long, and wish to be more gracious, I would gladly take one year or six months. Thanks again for your concern. With regards, Anupam 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Whoa No semblance of consensus for any such Draconian solution is evident above, hence this "final proposal" is of no value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus for anything here - and all the options have been suggested - this thread should be closed - its abuse to keep a thread open about a user on this attack board for any length of time - Anapam seems like a decent chap and appears to have taken the good faith advice you have all given him on board and so lets give him a chance to improve his contributing a bit.Youreallycan 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed. Close this, but open a new thread limited only to questions of copyvio and plagiarism on material introduced into Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@Youreallycan: Actually, it is not the case that there is no consensus for any of the proposals here. Just on the basis of !votes, the topic ban proposal has 28 supports and 9 opposes, which is 76%. That's certainly in the range where an admin could impose the topic ban, if the strength of the support arguments hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't and haven't actually counted the votes - I just felt from the whole discussion here that if you remove the partisans/users that are editing from a diametrically opposed real life belief to Anupam that there is/was no consensus amongst the uninvolved commenters - Youreallycan 13:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I really have very little idea of the "real life beliefs" of the participants here, and I think it would be a mistake for a closing admin to try to take that into account -- too many assumptions to make which could well be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC, could I ask you a question? If you set aside notions of tribal membership for a moment and just look at the diffs presented so far, what do you see? Just the facts. After looking at the evidence, what do you see? I could present more diffs if you're not convinced. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC, You have made numerous comments in support of Anupam but do not appear to have addressed any of the diffs showing POV pushing etc. I am also aware that Anupam views you as a friend when she asked you to comment here. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anupam

Statement by User:Anupam: Dear Administrator User:DGG, User:Youreallycan, and User:Collect, thank your for your kind comments. I acknowledge that I have transgressed against the plagiarism/paraphrasing policy at Misplaced Pages, although unintentionally, and am committed to working with administrators who are welcome to monitor my work so that I might not do so anymore. Although I always add citations to my work, that is not enough and I should put quotations in direct quotes. In addition, I acknowledge that some editors have found my editing to be problematic and I am willing to improve in this area as well, with the generous help of administrators, as well as users on Misplaced Pages. While some users have suggested a topic ban, other experienced editors have opposed such a ban, on the basis of the issue amounting to a content dispute. However, if it is the desire of the closing administrator that I should be topic banned, in light of looking through the situation, I would accept a topic ban in good faith for a specified time period, even for one or two years, to one day generate more articles, such as Works of Piety, which I created. I am also open to the suggestion of taking a long WikiBreak, during which I can reflect on Misplaced Pages's core policies and mission, which will help me grow as a person and as an editor. I have been an editor since 2006 and enjoy creating articles, editing them, and helping other users; many individuals, including administrators, have appreciated my efforts here and I am glad that I can make a positive difference. For the things that I have done wrong, I ask you to please forgive me; I mean that will all my heart. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I am grateful for all the comments here to help better myself and Misplaced Pages as a whole. Your fellow editor and friend, Anupam 02:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anupam, could you please stop the cherrypicking and the walls of text? We all realise that you are capable of being superficially civil, but "some people support me" is a deeply inaccurate summary of what's above, we've heard all the excuses several times - and the politeness is the only reason you've got away with the lying, distorting, plagiarising, and cheating for so long. Please stop. Let the closing administrator make their own decision. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New evidence

The deeper you dig, the more problems you find. For instance, today I discovered that:

• Unaffiliated was created as a coatrack for the claims about atheism & suicide which anupam had previously tried to insert into other articles;
• Patrick Greene (activist) paints a very different picture to ;
• Half of the original Centre for Intelligent Design was a direct copy & paste from and that text is still, unmodified, in the article today.

And so on. What else will be found if we dig deeper? It might be worth returning to the Militant Atheism article history, and looking at the background of a couple of other accounts which supported Anupam in one of the many RfCs; although, alas, the existing collection of diffs seems to have been totally ignored by anupam and by those who were canvassed from the Christianity noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This demonstrates a content dispute and a desire for User:Bobrayner to suppress a point of view different from his. Notice how he values a personal blog he wrote for a pressure group more than MSNBC, MSN, The Houston Chronicle, among other mainstream sources. The article on the Centre for Intelligent Design also is not a copvio as User:Bobrayner falsely claims; in fact, as demonstrated in the talk page of the article, a dispute resolution was enacted to help write the article. Cheers, Anupam 17:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, please stop lying. Half of the text of this is directly copied from here. Other editors are welcome to search for the text about charitable status and Guernsey.

This is not a content dispute - a point which has been explained repeatedly above - I couldn't care a jot about the charitable status of the CID. I am merely presenting further evidence of lying, copying, distorting, and cheating. If any other editors haven't made up their mind yet, I can go look for some more diffs.

Curiously, your response doesn't actually mention this - you really ought to stop the cherrypicking. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner's comments above reflect his POV here, presenting a conflict of interest, due to his personal POV position (which is an acceptable position, just one that may present a COI on articles related to atheism and religion); while he removes information from the The American Journal of Psychiatry with the edit summary "removing more WP:COATRACK," he retains the section here and does not remove it as a WP:COATRACK; User:Bobrayner also continues to let the WP:POVTITLEd section "Dangers of Religion" maintain itself in the article, not applying the same logic here. I would request that the filibustering please kindly end and instead, let the reviewing administrators look at the situation. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam 18:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, what on earth are you talking about? If you don't like the "Dangers of Religion", try discussing it on the article talkpage - don't blame me for a section that I never touched, in an article that I last edited in July 2010 - well before that heading was created. Finding an unrelated flaw in a random article is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for a well-evidenced campaign of cheating, lying, copying, and distorting.

I realise that anupam's defenders would like to frame this as an A versus B POV problem (hence the filibustering), but the evidence presented here shows one editor pov-pushing, sockpuppeting, plagiarising, and misusing sources. Not one side; not both sides; just anupam. If anybody digs up evidence of other editors playing the same dirty tricks, feel free to create a new thread on AN/I or some other appropriate venue. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding bobraynor's claim of new evidence - I am not seeing it at all in his diffs - Closure is needed here - clearly there are a few issues with Anupam's contributions, and the user has accepted that themselves - what about a IRR and a topic ban for two months - 1RR is a beneficial learning for all users and he might enjoy editing in less controversial area - the user has some/many beneficial contributions including NPOV article creation to the project can contribute for a couple of months in a less involved area and work on/learn more avoiding plagiarism ? - not as a punishment but as a relazing wiki break from a highly conflicted partisan area and an opportunity to read policy regarding plagiarism so as to avoid repeated issues in future. Youreallycan 18:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree closure is needed, but believe that a temporary topic ban is woefully insufficient:

• "Good contributions" does not provide a pass for bad behavior.
• "Lack of blocks" seems attributable more to success at gaming the system than a real respect for the WP community
• The battlefield behavior shown is atrocious.

This entire situation, including the chorus of "Good contributor!" and "Other POV pushers", coupled with really incivil behavior by many in this discussion (and some obvious canvassing) reminds me of the User:Grundle2600 mess. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Postscript:

• If others want to give credit to contributions of an editor, award a Barnstar. Don't use them to provide cover for bad behavior.
• Want to support the editor, or defend yourself? Great! But constantly lamenting that "those here are on the other side of the POV, so everything they say is biased" is offensive.
• Similarly, if others are concerned about "other POV" pushers, (1) find the diffs to support your position and have those editors sanctioned and (2) get the collection of articles covered under editing restrictions, to address bad behavior as soon as possible. The idea that this POV-pushing editor should be excused because he balances out "other" POV-pushers is absurd. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Grundle2600, I can the deja vu is strong with this one: "Given that my request was completely polite, and non-political, I think any block is unjustified". aprock (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is from my experience of such reports a reflection of the minor infractions that no action has been taken after many days, when violations are presented Admins act fast - yes there are partisan involved contributors shouting loudly and often - but about minor complaints that can be addressed without extended severe punishments. - Is a two month topic ban and 1RR restriction not severe enough for you? Youreallycan 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is generally true of egregious and and uncivil editors. The circumstances and issues with WP:Civil POV pushing are characteristically different. aprock (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)"Is a two month topic ban and 1RR restriction not severe enough for you?" Respectfully, no. From my experience, in 2+ months, this issue will be back again, at this or some other venue, wasting the time of the community again, and contributing to yet more disharmony. As a reminder, I came to this issue only by perusing WP:ANI, and then reading the diffs and talk pages and article history pages associated with the dispute. To me, as a complete outsider, the issue is not a well-meaning but misguided editor that just needs time and some oversight to mend his accidentally erroneous ways. Rather, I see a concerted effort to game the system, and all that means. A limited or indefinite topic ban will just mean more things to wikilawyer, and more envelopes to push. The editor can always appeal a Community ban in 6 months (and, earlier in this discussion, seemed ready for a 1 or 2 year topic ban!). Appeal to the community (or ArbCom) in 6 months, and, assuming good behavior in the interim, he can resume with his many good contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring at ANI considered harmful

May I humbly suggest that edit-warring at ANI may not be such a great idea? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. In a thread which discusses Anupam's history of edit warring, he's at 5RR in the last 24 hours, and 8RR overall:

1. 03:45, 8 May 2012
2. 03:20, 8 May 2012
3. 03:13, 8 May 2012
4. 19:15, 7 May 2012
5. 17:12, 7 May 2012
6. 01:51, 7 May 2012
7. 19:55, 4 May 2012
8. 05:29, 2 May 2012

aprock (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I informed an administrator, User:DGG, that I would be reverting User:Bobrayner, who added an unproven canvassing notice underneath every single post by veteran editor, User:Cody7777777. I find that ironic that User:Bobrayner has added such a false notice because he emailed several users offsite in order to ban me in the first place; most of these users participated in this RfC/content dispute, along with User:Bobrayner. Nevertheless, adding such a notice underneath every post by a respected user is disruptive and tendentious. Like many other users have stated (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, Exhibit Three), User:Bobrayner started a Topic Ban discussion, also with non-neutral wording, in order to support his POV; this user, despite being politely asked to stop, insists on calling this a crusade, implying that this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and has made derogatory remarks about Christianity in general (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, among many others). Thanks for taking the time to read this comment. With regards, Anupam 04:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There are exemptions to WP:3RR that allow reverts of certain kinds. Are you asserting your reverts met those exemptions? If they do not, are you prepared to be blocked for edit warring, as you earlier noted you were prepared to be banned for 1 or 2 years? JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Anupam violated WP:3RR. I guess it doesn't need to be brought to WP:ANI :-) -Abhishikt (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be brought to WP:AN3 - a bright-line was crossed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: The reviewing adminitrator, User:DGG, stated that the addition and restoration of the canvassing note by User:Bobrayner under every post of User:Cody7777777 was inappropriate. I hope you understand now. Thank you, Anupam 05:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note2: Please read the entire response of the admin for yet another example of cherry picking and twisting of meaning tactics used by Anupam. -Abhishikt (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please read the entire response! As a side note, User:Abhishikt restored the false notices placed by User:Bobrayner. Cheers, Anupam 05:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Similarly flaunting policy, earlier today User:Anupam refactored other's comments here at AN/I claiming NPOV' after User:Youreallycan did the same thing and was reverted. Here User:Anupam defends User:Youreallycan after he was warned regarding his refactoring . Ib think these episodes, right in the middle of this AN/I discussion period, are sad but clear examples of User:Anupam and his supporters gaming the system. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan was attempting to make the section title neutral per WP:POVTITLE. It is not appropriate to call a section "evidence" when it is only speculation. Furthermore, did you read the topic ban proposal? Do you think that is neutral? The only thing I see here is a tag team revert war in order to have the objective reader led to a certain conclusion, which is very unfrair. To the reviewing administrator, thank you for taking the time to read this comment. Respectfully, Anupam 04:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy that supports your refactoring other's comments. Your assertion of tag-teaming is ironic, as you followed User:Youreallycan's edit immediately after it was reverted. Is that not tag-teaming? Who exactly are you accusing of tag-teaming? Your own actions are leading people to conclusions, and, in terms of my own conclusions, those conclusions are strengthened by your incredible bad conduct here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Anupam, You were informed at User_talk:Anupam#NPOV that NPOV does not apply to project-space just earlier today. So why are you still holding on the same argument? I guess it just further shows Anupam's unwillingness to learn and deflectionary tactics of arguing same thing over and over again. -Abhishikt (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, how would you like if I added a notice under each and every one of your comments that you were canvassed here? Is that fair? Is that neutral? This is exactly what User:Bobrayner did to all the comments of User:Cody7777777, even though this is not true. These users in total, have formed a tag team in order to bias the reader, when individuals try to neutralize the section headers and proposals and this is not right. The amount of users on User:Bobrayner's tag team far exceeds the reverts I performed here and you sadly turn a blind eye to it. I am listing the reverts by this team below:

• Revert One
• Revert Two
• Revert Three
• Revert Four
• Revert Five
• Revert Six
• Revert Seven
• Revert Eight
• Revert Nine
• Revert Ten
• Revert Eleven
• Revert Twelve

To the reviewing administrator, I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 05:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated: Anupam, what makes User:DGG reviewing administrator of this thread? There are multiple admins involved in this thread, of which probably only User:DGG looks sympathetic towards you, it seems to me that that's why you pleading at User_talk:DGG#Concern requesting him to close this thread, which seems to be a dishonest way to game the system to get out of the bans. From your comments there, it is clear that previously User:Master of Puppets used to get you out or get your way in disputes/RfCs. Probably that's how to you survived any bans till now. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside: I'm not entirely certain about this, but I don't think DGG was sympathetic to Anupam so much as he is trying to raise the bar on the evidence needed to ban editors with minority POVs. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lies

It's quite unfortunate that anupam waited until a time of day when I wouldn't be around and then edit-warred to remove valid comments that I made, and then tried blaming some wholly fictitious tag-team. Thanks to Abhishikt for notifying me; anupam didn't. Edit-warring to remove evidence that other !voters were canvassed to defend anupam, no less. Anupam is happy to break any rule in order to continue their crusade; how much longer must we put up with this? bobrayner (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And the lies persist; "I would be reverting User:Bobrayner, who added an unproven canvassing notice underneath every single post by veteran editor, User:Cody7777777". Cody7777777 openly admitted that they came here from the thread where lionelt canvassed - and the comment was not under every single post by Cody7777777. There are reasons to believe that other anupam supporters were canvassed; for instance, Kuaichic hasn't edited anything other than their userpage since 2009 but they still found this thread and !voted in anupam's defense. I only used the template on the clear-cut one. bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen Lionelt's post there (which actually took me first to Anupam's talk page, not directly here), however in my opinion this doesn't really represent a case of canvassing, since it was not posted on my user talk page. But since I have admitted to seeing it (and you had also posted your concerns in a section above), I do not think it was necessary for you to post those mentions under my comments. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an outrageous lie, but sadly no less than we expect from anupam now: "He emailed several users offsite in order to ban me in the first place". If[REDACTED] has any technical record of emails sent, I invite any admin to have a look; I sent no emails, my record is clean, I have not canvassed. Why do we keep tolerating the lies and the distortion and the pov-pushing? There is real evidence of canvassing in support of anupam but strangely that hasn't attracted comment. bobrayner (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody want more diffs? I realise that practically everybody will have made up their mind now, one way or another; but if anybody is still on the fence I would be happy to offer more diffs covering any of the various flavours of problematic editing mentioned above. Taking anupam's baiting at face value is not helping my blood pressure and not helping the discussion; I'd be happy to bring this discussion back to the evidence. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I think Anupam just trolled you. My experience here is that the community tolerates liars and does nothing to block or ban them. I've been in discussions where an editor isn't just lying on the talk page, but making the most outrageous claims you can think of that have no basis in reality. In my experience, admins will do nothing. Best to just focus on being the better person and let karma (simply the law of cause and effect, nothing mystical about it) have the final say. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I'm taking a break. I don't need this all this stress. If anybody else would like additional diffs of any particular aspect of anupam's deceit and pov-pushing, try my talkpage. Otherwise, wake me up when this thread is closed. In the meantime, anupam may have the last word. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner has been using an offsite email list in order to coordinate individuals at this report, in addition to various content disputes, such as this RfC, where User:Bobrayner was a leading voice among a partisan group, also including User:Mann jess, User:IRWolfie-, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:ArtifexMayhem, User:Abhishikt, and User:Virditas, the latter of whom appeared later on the article. Coincidentally, these very same individuals particiapted in this RfC, on a totally unrelated topic, where I was involved. Coincidentally (or not?), these are the same individuals that are trying to push a ban on me here. User:Bobrayner ironically attempts to tag all of User:Cody7777777's posts as canvassing, which I correctly reverted; the reviewing administrator, User:DGG, stated, in regards to User:Bobrayner's action: "the addition of that note multiple times was not appropriate." User:Bobrayner makes no mention here that he committed an error, but instead, says "sorry" to User:DGG and then attempts to mischaracterize me here further, which is unnaceptable. Reviewing administrator, thank you for taking the time to read this mesasage. With regards, Anupam 14:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates Anupam insistence on pasting text which he knows to be false, and a really severe case of I didn't hear that. In this discussion I have already pointed out at least 3 times that Anupam's comment about my attendance of RfCs was incorrect: . IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You've now officially jumped the shark, Anupam. I have no connection with those people you've listed. Bobrayner appears to be correct about your propensity for tall tales and playing fast and loose with the facts. Let me be clear: if you can't provide evidence that "Bobrayner has been using an offsite email list in order to coordinate individuals at this report in addition to various content disputes" including myself and the others listed above, then I must request that an administrator block your account for deliberately making a false statement for the sole purpose of disrupting Misplaced Pages. I'm not entirely sure what you are thinking by making crazy statements like this, but I suspect we're starting to see the real Anupam, behind the mask of artificial civility for the first time. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long, but it had to come off at some point. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I remember having this issue with you before, Anupam. Whenever anyone would accuse you of doing anything, you'd turn around and start accusing them of the same thing, evidence or not. I assume your tactic is to make the claims so difficult to follow that passerbys will have to take everything at face value without investigation, and then it'll seem like you're not doing anything different than anyone else. I can't imagine any way in which that's not willfully dishonest, and it's the biggest reason my AGF has long since gone out the door. You have no evidence, whatsoever, that anyone was emailed to come here. In fact, you have evidence to the contrary; many of these users, myself included, were approached on our talk page only after our names were included in the discussion. You know exactly how I found out about this discussion because it's a part of WP record. You need to stop saying I was emailed as a canvassing effort. Now. You have brought nothing to the table but bald assertions that others are out to get you. Your behavior, on the other hand, includes finding users that have previously supported you in ANI cases and requesting they do so again, (like YouReallyCan and History2007), or Lionelt posting an emotional message on a noticeboard frequented by your friends saying the evil overlords are going to ban you unless they say something. Stop attacking others without evidence just to make yourself look better. It doesn't, and it's grossly out of line.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anupan, I have blocked you for 24 hours for trying to escalate this by WP:Forum shopping and spreading the quarrel. This is just to stop this temporarily. I leave the question of how to deal with the plagiarism and a possible topic ban to other editors.
  However, Viriditas and Bobraynor and everybody else, using the word "lies" always makes everything worse, despite any provocation, and I am warn you all to stop using it and find some more civilized equivalent. Bobraynor, your multiple positing was not calculated to help things, and I warn you accordingly.
  

I suggest not attacking Anupan further when he isn't able to be here, but finding a solution. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• DGG, I respect you greatly as an editor, but what else am I supposed to do? I and others have presented extensive evidence of a variety of different policy violations, and they just get brushed off. I offer to present more diffs but nobody's interested. Then anupam replies with lies very negative comments about me which are not true and which are calculated to discredit me. Over and over again. And the community just stands there and watches. I took a break from this page hoping it would lower the temperature, but all that happened was that anupam used the opportunity to post an even worse collection of lies claims which are either impossible to reconcile with the evidence, or an extreme distortion of reality, which are deliberately chosen to make other editors look bad. If posting more evidence of problematic editing does nothing, and if it's not permitted to label canvassed editors (without which anupam's support looks shockingly sparse), and if all I get in return is lies but I'm not allowed to call them lies, and if keeping quiet makes the lies worse, and if anupam spreads the lies to other people's talkpages, what else would you have me do? Despite a remarkable range of policy violations - malicious lies, editwarring (including 5RR today on AN/I in a desperate move to hide more evidence of canvassing), vote-stacking, sockpuppetry, canvassing, and a long-term campaign to misuse sources, pov-push and coatrack - the community stands by and does nothing.
• Well, I leave it up to the rest of you. I felt able to return here because anupam was shut up for 24 hours, but that's temporary. I'll avoid this page again. Maybe the appalling behaviour will be stopped, maybe not. Maybe we would have been better off if this thread were shut down quickly like the last one. Presumably there has been some pressure, including a politely-worded email, for anupam's previous favourite administrator to close this thread; I would counsel them against that as it could look quite unseemly and we don't want more drama. (Needless to say, I have more diffs). bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Normally I & most admins block both sides to a dispute in this sort of situation to prevent this sort of continuation. I held off this time, lest you should feel even more injured. I see I was wrong. I have blocked you for 12 hours. Do not resume it, or call someone a liar. You have already refuted what was said enough times, and you will not convince anybody the more by repeating it. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Anupam is making very serious allegations of offwiki coordination User_talk:Anupam#Arbcom_case. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arbcom case is going on here - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anupam_.26_Bobrayner.-Abhishikt (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this has gone too long and it's further wasting wiki communities' time and efforts. Can an uninvolved admin go through the huge thread and bring it to conclusion. -Abhishikt (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussion of closure

• "I believe this is at the light end of what consensus supports"? That's rather an understatement, considering the strong - and growing - support - for a full community ban, or at least a topic ban. Instead, the result of this closure is that anupam might get a short topic ban after the next bout of pov-pushing. How much more do we have to put up with? I think this closure has done the community a great disservice. However, I don't want to risk another block by DGG so I will not act further. bobrayner (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is strong support for an immediate ban, but there is also significant dissent from people I have no reason to disregard. I believe the closure leaves minimal wiggle room. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• This "close" is ridiculous. Despite the clear consensus for at least topic ban (even if we discount all involved users on both sides), he is not topic banned, but may be topic banned one day. The overall conclusion is that Anupam is attempting to push Misplaced Pages content in the direction of sympathy with his POV, and is supported in this by others who share that POV. - so why he is not topic banned (at least)?????--В и к и T 11:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• What just happened? This close is entirely contrary to consensus. We have complete consensus for a topic ban, consensus for a full community ban (though I could imagine someone disagreeing due to a small margin), and no consensus (or consensus against) a 1RR sanction. Further, every single proposal which involved a definite time period on sanctions or involved keeping Anupam under scrutiny and blocking him later was met with harsh opposition. Yet, this was closed with a 6 month 1RR sanction with a warning of future blocks? This doesn't address any of the issues presented here, and is contrary to the express wishes of the community. Can we have another uninvolved party look this over? I don't imagine this is going to go over well with the large swath of editors who commented here, but were disregarded in this decision. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I believed WP works based on WP:Consensus and not what closing admin thinks. I agree with User:Bobrayner, User:Wikiwind and User:Mann_jess. Can the closing admin please provide explaination. -Abhishikt (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy's closure is a strong result. It authorizes individual admins to take swift action when they perceive further problems without them having to wait for 10,000 more words at ANI. Since there was obviously a difference of opinion in this thread, it would be hard to fine-tune a more precise closure without an extended process like an WP:RFC/U. Few of us would be willing to go through that much suffering. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While perhaps a strong result, however, it is not the proposal supported by consensus. Had Guy's decision been posted as a proposal, it may (or may not) have been supported, but for him to decide on an entirely novel sanction contrary to the discussion above contravenes consensus and the opinions of the vast number of editors who commented. There is clear consensus above that sanctions are needed now, not at some point in the future, and that a definite time period on sanctions is a bad idea. This decision outright rejects that consensus in favor of the singular opinion of the closing admin.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say there's probably something like 80-90% support for a topic ban, and what we've got is effectively 80-90% of a topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Anupam is currently not topic banned from anything, despite support for a very broad range of topics above. I also don't know anywhere else consensus works that way, by weighing support and then watering down the proposal based on a percentage of votes to a novel decision that no party agreed to. We have consensus for a topic ban as an absolute minimum measure above, and what we got was less than that, by your and the closing admins own admission. I don't see how that's at all in line with consensus. I could see these new terms added to the topic ban supported above if the closing admin felt there wasn't sufficient consensus for a community ban as some kind of middle ground. Instead, we got less than anyone supported.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe Guy's closure is a good one, and is perhaps cleverer than people might think. While an actual topic ban has not been enacted now, the restrictions placed on Anupam are almost as tight as a topic ban would be anyway - one edit out of line on any related article, and a blocking admin can impose the ban at that point. I think this recognizes the level of support for a topic ban, while at the same time allowing for the opinions of the dissenters, some of whom are very experienced here. I think this result is effectively weighted something like 90% supporting the ban !votes and 10% supporting the no-ban !votes, which sounds good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree there is consensus for any of the proposals above and that this closure might allow the real issue to be addressed, which is the plagarism claims. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agree this was a good closure. The intent is not to punish, but to put forward a framework for positive contributions from all parties. Good faith is required to assume A will abide by these terms, and good faith is required by all parties that editing these articles will go forward in an atmosphere of improving collaboration. As a start, everyone should not go looking for the next bad move by the "other side". I recommend everyone take a breather from ANI and get back to editing. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Putting it forward as a proposal would have resulted in nothing other than more verbiage and circular discussion. I would remind people that consensus does not mean a majority vote, and by the measure of consensus there was no consensus to enact any immediate draconian sanctions, because there were credible objections from people whose opinion I had no good reason to discount. Anupam appears to accept that this is a just result, which means that we are markedly less likely to have to reach for the banninator in the short term - but if we do, we do. I think the amount of future disruption from Anupam is likely to be very small, as either there will be reform or a swiftly escalating series of topic bans and blocks. As noted above, Anupam has 7 years block-free, which is no small thing, so I think we should offer the courtesy of a chance to straighten out. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think Guy's close is fine for similar reasons as given by Boing! said Zebedee. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a bit surprised by the closure (I would have read consensus a bit differently) but I don't disagree with his reasoning and I think it addresses the issues presented with the minimum necessary to deal with the problem. Anupam is on maybe the tightest leash I've seen imposed, and said leash will essentially prohibit him from doing anything he was found to be wrongfully doing in the above thread. Whether it's POV pushing, edit warring or plagiarism, the adminship here is now well aware of the background to this dispute and I imagine no one will be conservative in blocking or imposing a ban for even a slight transgression. SÆdon 21:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about the nonsense created by some banned editors (some of whom seem to have devoted most of their spare time for five years or more to trying to undermine Misplaced Pages). I am increasingly convinced that hasty bans offer detractors (including the bannee) ammunition and an excuse for lasting animosity. After all, Anupam has been here for a long time and has some justification in feeling vested in the project as a contributor. The two things I believe may help to alleviate this problem are the use of unambiguous final warnings with clear guidance for improvement, and giving people a graceful exit (e.g. by renaming blocked accounts linked to real world identity, a low bar to courtesy blanking and so on). Maybe I am wrong, but undoubtedly being heavy handed has not always worked well in the past so I think it's worth a try. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned this morning at User talk:Anupam#Notice of restrictions, I think you were lenient with Anupam, but that I was OK with your close. I think your rationale for it is sound. Mojoworker (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Guy, I liked your line of thinking. Now, I'm convinced that this is a right resolution. Cheers. -Abhishikt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I was in favor of a community ban, but I have no problem with Guy's close, which imposes restrictions which, if Anupam continues his previous behavior, should lead to immediate action against him. Please see WP:ROPE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More disruption involving MMA

User:Agent00f

Firstly Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability having derailed the last attempt to reach a proposal for an RfC by filibustering in the process driving off one editor he is now using it as his own persoal soap box and forum. See this edit. Mtking 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For some background, this is a topic which has seen failure after failure in all previous attempts to be resolved for many months. The blindingly obvious common denominator in every single case are 3 editors: Mtking, TreyGeek, and Hasteur. Together they collude and dominate the discussion to the exclusion of actual contributors/users of the pages in question, then intimidate anyone who dares oppose or even question their methodology. This bred the animosity and untenable situation we find ourselves today: even though there are tens of thousands of users, hundreds of page contributors (dozens of which are were active in the discussion before), and many if not most have left in sheer disgust. None outside of their in-group have any trust or faith in them, and their string of failures are a stain on wikipedia's image. Simply observe Mtking's behavior below toward yet another user they've managed to provoke.

As to the issue at hand, I am not at all blocking their effort to repeat history, but instead only wish to introduce an alternative approach which is open to other participants. They can certainly choose not to participate, and we can move this new effort to another page if need be (several options exist). They of course see this as a threat to their dominion and engage in an active campaign to stop anyone who challenge their monopoly on power. If I just move the call for participation elsewhere, they'll simply retaliate elsewhere, so there's no safe harbor where another approach can at least be attempted. I strongly believe an effort which is not their direct control has at least a moderate chance of success, and the powers at be should consider all the other page contributors' wishes to resolve the matter when all previous attempt with our common denominators have failed miserably. Agent00f (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I request that you strike your assertion regarding the collusion and assertion regarding the common denominator. That is an assumption of bad faith on the behalf of editors in good standing with[REDACTED] whom have been attempting to apply the policy and standards as they exisist today. Long blocks of soapboxing and proposals which are directly contrary to the established policies are not collaberative, but disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to strike assertions that are objectively true and supported by empirical evidence. As just one example, in the last failed AN attempt against me, after a round of intimidation Hasteur contacted the select group to provide (obviously biased) supporting statements. Not a single other participant on the talk page was contacted despite his claim of "neutrality". This is recorded in wiki for posterity. Singling out those who are not as well coordinated as them seems to be their modus operandi, as is clearly evident right here.

Also note that Hasteur continues to slam others for "assuming bad faith", when no assumption is necessary given copious empirical evidence. As further evidence of the tight knit nature of this clique, observe that TreyGeek immediately re-reverted when I tried to put back the comments that Mtking blatantly erased from the talk page. This is a consistent and repeated rule rather than the exception. Hasteur doesn't deny that my asserts are true, only feigning righteous indignation and wishing to strike them from the record regardless (and this is far from the first time). Again consistent with the assertion that they expect a monopoly on power. Agent00f (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now gone over the WP:3RR line at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, I have filed a report at WP:3RR/N.Mtking 07:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. This action in itself is forum-shopping FORUMSHOP, while a link was provide, they're clearly the same issue and no link was provide back here even though it was created later. Notable given edit warring is more straightforward offense (quick block action).

As more evidence of the persistent lack of ethics noted on this page, Mtking's now trying to cover his/her deletion tactics by posting a specious AN, then offering to withdraw it only if they agree to the wholesale deletion.

User:Mtking and User:Hasteur

Many obvious violations by Mtking:

• The "edit war" AN just above was a consequence of blatant whole revertion/deletion (including unrelated comments) in violation of WP:TALKO editing rules. By sharing 3 reverts between 2 editors who work closely together (simply look at history for evidence), they can successfully flaunted 3RR, leaving the status of any new material in doubt and successful blocking contributions of any one person they choose. General intimidation.

• The collusion between Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion constitutes blatant BITE on all their parts. Using intimidation strategies in turn against people less versed in the long list of rules. This has apparently gone on for months.

• Just one specific case out of many by Hasteur is these "final warning" threats. Clear case of WP:Harassment. When they're brought to attention of broader community, he/she further ratchets up the threat level to force others to immediately apologize "or else". This is recorded at the MMA talk page. This resulted in WP:CANVASING, a very embarrassing ANI on their part, but this obviously continues unabated.

• Flooding of my user talk page by the lot above + Newmanoconnor (who just joined their gang a week ago), another case of #User_space_harassment. They never reply with any specifics when asked for evidence of violation. Seems the strategy is to flood for stuff they can't get away with at AN, and forums shop on anything borderline.

• Blatant ADMINSHOP given that multiple admins have already been involved in this general situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant WP:CANVASSING by User:Hasteur) and the common denominator for months in all these problems remains Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek.

• This whole AN is done in bad faith, no assumption necessary. The talk page in question has long devolved into the state it's in, and my edit was only to get normative processes back into order by analyzing previous failures and trying to avoid them in the future. Even the former admin was soapboxing. Nothing but desperate last ditch attempt at ADMINSHOP.
• One of the comments on the page above was "closed" completely at odds with closure rules, pretending to be the admin of the place despite having no authoritative power.

• In another blatant violation of ADMIN SHOPPING elsewhere, all 3 have conducted multiple aggressive campaigns of AfD's on entire sets of MMA pages even during collaboration with page's contributors, often voting in concord between themselves. Simply look at their histories, it's nothing but trying to trash MMA related pages and hunt down MMA contributors. They're not always successful, but doesn't stop the "try try again" approach. Even minor successes can break a set of page's cohesion, which is why they keep trying instead of waiting for any kind of resolution. This kind of SHOPPING is clearly an asymmetric "terrorism" against a whole wiki community since it costs them nothing while hugely disrupting others.

Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f named me in this subsection and did not notify me. Again, we have the same demonstration of lack of good faith. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur is already subscribed to this, aka already knows this AN exists. Note timestamp on his/her direct reply to me above. BTW, I'm also not going to spam TreyGeek's talk since he also knows this exist. Personally I think spamming someone's page with AN notices when they already know is close to User space harassment. Agent00f (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This list has sat here uncontested for many days. It can only be concluded that any admins who've seen it don't disagree with its claims, yet choose to do nothing about MtKing and Hasteur's behavior regardless. I was blocked by one admin for apparently posting too many claims (ie TLDR: ban, so it's not surprising he/she's yet to reply to any request to explain this odd decision), but no one's addressed these violations above. It's notable that even while this AN section is ongoing, the harassment (Newmanoconnor specifically) on my talk page continues. Agent00f (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Portillo

Secondly Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to attack other editors, see this, this and this. Mtking 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is simply more WP:Harassment by MtKing. Targets pages someone's involved with for deletion (since no sanctions for excessive AfDs, even failed ones), and when they lash back, tries to drive them out. Just look at Mtking's history, it's purely destructive, and it's daily routine. Agent00f (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors has been incredibly disruptive and confusing. Interesting how UFC articles were doing perfectly fine for years, enjoyed by thousands of visitors. Until someone suddenly noticed that UFC events are against Misplaced Pages policy. Took a while to figure that out. Portillo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is not now, nor has ever been, a defense to violations of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consisting of "It's been up for years and no one noticed before now that they were in violation." Quite aside from that standards change, and that handwaving was done in the cowboy days that don't pass muster now, there is no statute of limitations here.

  That being said, those links were unacceptable personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, pure and simple, and it is curious that someone who has been on Misplaced Pages as long as you have might not understand that. Strange though it might appear to some that an editor could think so without some unwholesome bias, it is quite possible to believe that a particular type of article fails to pass notability muster (and, indeed, continue to hold it) without having a "personal agenda" or being on a "witch hunt." Ravenswing 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the perfectly coherent defense is the 5th and last pillar of wiki: it is not a bureaucracy. This means that while following rules are convenient for daily operations, rules are not the defining characteristic. The MMA event articles are not some flash by night operation. They've used and appreciated by countless users. They also exist as a coherent and cohesive where it's worth as a whole is significantly diminished with deletion of each election. Without a consistent solution in hand, it's simply reckless (not bold) to allow individual hit-and-run AfDs to ruin a useful resource. Help the topic's long term contributors make it right, instead of capitulating to destructive editor with no stake in the outcome. I hope that someone who has been on Misplaced Pages as long as you have could understand this. Agent00f (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Funny that, but a consistent solution is at hand: the omnibus yearly articles. (It's not that employing them is an "inconsistent" solution, of course; it's that you don't like them.) That being said, I note that you are perfectly willing to cite rules and policies when they suit your purpose to do so, and this strikes me as another area where you argue policy when you believe it favors your stance, and that policy should be ignored when you believe it doesn't. Moreover, what I note you do not attempt to rebut are your unacceptable personal attacks ... unless you believe that falls under IAR as well.

  That being said, there's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based boards which applies: "It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that I don't agree with your position." Ravenswing 02:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Their design is incoherent, user unfriendly, and aesthetically terrible. I've gone over the details at length on the omnibus, but I see that you've managed to understand the specifics even without knowing anything about the subject. More importantly, because of this, nobody in the actual audience for the rules and pages likes them in any way. You can of course "disagree", but unfortunately factual reality isn't very considerate about this type of opinion. Agent00f (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, you seem to be accusing me of hypocrisy. Please cite some evidence of this, or at least let me now if asking for citation is against wiki policy since these types of requests never seem to get fulfilled. If it's simply your "opinion", not meant to reflect factual reality, please note that in the statement to avoid confusion, thanks. Also, the only reason the sections above were written is because it's unfortunate reality that that idiotic AN's often get results. Not my rule, but we're in a place where it happens nonetheless. Agent00f (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Prayer for relief

As an editor who has been around and around the bush with the various SPAs that show up, disrupt all forward momentum on developing a workable solution to the MMA article space and then vanish in the night to leave the crew of regulars to do their best to demonstrate good faith by addressing the points raised by the SPAs, I with to enter a plea for relief. I request an uninvolved administrator (or multiple administrators) to start calling out (and sanctioning) the violations of community policy on all participants in the debate (yes, I open myself up to the calling out). The only way forward is to demonstrate to the externally canvassed (as has been demonstrated multiple times) editors that violations of community policy and standards will no longer be tolerated in the space. Hasteur (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The regulars who don't support this small clique's monopoly over the agenda have long left in disgust. Admin involvement to sanction any remaining dissent from their agenda will only further antagonize a poisonous situation. In the broader picture, it's the MMA page contributors who have to live with the consequences of the group's polarizing choices. They have little interest in the actual subject as evidenced by their terrible design for "omnibus pages" (which they stealth-implemented to the protestations of everyone else), and this means the rest of us will be saddled with the a burden they have no real stake in. This is not only demotivating to the masses but breeds contempt and grounds for future conflict, which is exactly we are trying to avoid. My alternative proposal is simply that those from the sporting community get a chance to create a plan consistent with both wiki rules and also the stakeholders in this case. We can do this among ourselves without issue if only those who consider themselves an executive elite stop actively sabotaging any efforts they can't directly control and manipulate. For a renewed effort to settle this matter, I've spend considerable time developing a process which would prevent take-overs by single parties in decision-making in the hopes that everyone gets a voice. This is a obviously a threat to them, and why they're trying to block me in a panic.

As to the technical specifics of the matter, most of us want brightline tests for MMA notability, and some level of protection for coherent sets of well formatted/presented and cleanly linked event pages as long as they can fit a minimal template standard. The first issue is obvious. A brightline test would provide clear precedence of what's acceptable. Recall this is the same group that's been actively AfD'ing subject pages at random, even during the "collaborative" process demonstrating bad faith, to gain leverage. A consistent test would sap the power of this tool in the future, so it's against their interests and not an option they'd consider at all. On the second issue, the MMA wiki community has for years used a consistent and well-established format to chain together cohesive sets of events whose value in sum are greater than their parts. Breaking these chains inflict damage well beyond the individual entries and thus why they're the choice of target for this AfD group to gain leverage. We're complete open to more stringent requirements (ie template) to establish brightline tests, but not unexpectedly this minority also won't table this.

What's been even more frustrating is that these features were presented as appendages to the clique's existing plan (in something of 80-20 split in their favor), and they willfull ignored any mention it. Such is the nature of their attitude of complete domination. Rather than let anyone else present their ideas, this small group has intentionally driven off collaborators. No matter how you look at it, the common denominator of the string of previous failures is still them. Agent00f (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, can you link the specific edit where you made a proposal for possible guidelines on the notability of MMA events? I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I've seen walls of text, much like this one, that don't seem to go anywhere, in my opinion. It is difficult to comment or discuss a proposal that I haven't seen clearly. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply search for "I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth" on the omnibus page. Note that it's bulleted to be easy to see and read. It was of course ignored by the clique.

More importantly, I believe the approach that you and Mtking took when writing your proposal is already poisoned. The broader community was never consulted, so they have zero incentive to buy in except to capitulate to the constant intimidation and harassment. This is why I proposed a new start with the MMA base onboard from the start. The can choose your plan, or they can choose something else, but they're not forced either way, esp by admin pressure. If it needs to be revised to meet wiki boundaries, so be it, that's their responsibility. It's not your right to take that away from everyone else.

I've started writing this when Mtking immediately saw it as a threat and started this AN. My first post in a line to be posted over time was wholesale deleted. You know what got deleted given you were part of the 3RR. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped you would provide an actual link so we could be sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am going to assume you are referring to this edit. If this assumption is correct, the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't understand it. I cannot tell what you want WP:MMAEVENT to read or how it is related to existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, if at all. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it? Users want something with a given structure. The rules should be written to accommodate this, not the other way around. Maybe it's due to your background, but these are not physically or mathematically defined impermeable constructs to assemble towards an end. They're guidelines which can be simply created out of thin air as long as they're reasonably consistent to the general spirit of wiki. If you don't feel MMAEVENT can be stretched to accomodate, then it doesn't even need to enter into this. Agent00f (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seem like blatant ADMIN SHOPPING, esp when factoring in "multiple administrators". Multiple admins have already been involved in this situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant CANVASING by Hasteur) and common denominator in all these problems remains the 3 named above. Also, calling out "SPA's" with every breath, who are often the only people left to oppose them, is directly in violation of BITING. Rotating between them to throw the rulebook at newbies to intimidate them also seems like BITEing. Agent00f (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE says that if you see a SPA acting like a SPA you should call them a SPA. Tagging them as SPAs only allows other editors who aren't as quick on the uptake to see if the actions do warrant further response. Please strike your assertions of canvassing. No action was taken during the last ANI where you believe I canvassed therefore you should WP:DROP the claim. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:BITEing with rulebook. Below are the CANVASING links. These are the only people to comment against me on the ANI directly after. These are the named people (Newmanoconnor is newest member and thus not part of the "common denominator", but he's already been WP:Harrassing me in turn with Hasteur right I joined), plus the admin who strongly endorses MtKing + TreyGeek plan (his own words). They are a solid votingblock. The ANI didn't go anywhere, esp after posting these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mtking#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Newmanoconnor#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TreyGeek#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#FYI:_Agent00f

I have no intention of retracting a 100% factual statement. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "SPA"s, one quick look through all these user's histories clearly indicate that all 3 of them basically try to delete or otherwise disrupt MMA articles for a living. Includes many trips to AN's and votingblock at AfD's. Fortunately there's no wiki rule WP:HYPOCRISY or we wouldn't all be entertained by this ridiculous forum shopping right now. Agent00f (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I again ask you to strike the above mentioned assertion. I am not a Single Purpose account. I do not edit exclusively MMA based topics. My edit history very clearly shows a focus on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) based articles, but no singular purpose in any editing. You on the other hand have exclusively edited the talk page for WP:MMANOT, your talk page, and this noticeboard. Your actions are a textbook definition of a single purpose account. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of the last 500 edits, the vast majority involves destructive tendencies against MMA material/users. Also, you don't "edit exclusively MMA based topics" since you don't edit anything in them at all. Agent00f (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f - statements that people are trying to delete articles "for a living" (implying paid editing) or calling edits "terrorism" are very serious personal attacks and if continued would warrant admin action under WP:NPA. They do not help to reach resolutions of the dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"for a living" is a figure of speech. If you look through history, the vast majority of their actions are destruction against MMA material. Asymmetric "terrorism" is much more literal. The idea of terrorism is low-cost strikes (which AfD's are, they cost nothing) against higher value targets (which articles in a coherent set are, take out one and the sum suffers). It is also a tool of threat/fear. Note that these AfD's are being fired even during the "consensus" process, implying that they will stop so long as we agree to their plan. This is not unlike bringing guns to arms reduction talks and randomly shooting at people until the other side capitulates. It doesn't always have to hit, but occasionally hitting helps. We literally have no recourse against this other than capitulating. The clique has no material to AfD, so it is by definition asymmetric. These are direct factual statements and abstract reasoning and thus need no retraction. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Facts of the case

In good faith I'll have to hold off on posting any "soapboxing" on the MMA talk page until this is resolved. So instead of working further on rules for proposals and proposals, I'll write some background to the case, valuable to any decision. Good decisions are based on factual knowledge.

These are mostly for any intervening admin (which I think should intervene). They are empirical observations, assuming good faith in all cases (and no value judgments to minimize bias). They are my direct experience after 1 week (and reading the history):

1. The current MMA omnibus "design" is the product of Mtking and Treygeek. An admin verified this. Mtking knows nothing about the subject, and Treygeek claims to but he's never really demonstrated it anywhere other than improving an event page with some generic prose. He also claimed this took him a significant investment over a whole week, so I guess he works slow.

2. The design they've come up with is both visual atrocious (mismatched sidebars, etc) and obscenely long (already hard to navigate even though only 1/2 complete). Not to mention completely irrational for a non-seasonal sport (which is not sorted by calendar year), and potentially inconsistent in presentation between different organization. This can only be because someone's incompetent or willfully incompetent. We are told to assume good faith, so logically that leaves the former, and it would make sense given 1. Regardless, this doesn't bode well for MMA on wiki in the long term. Because this was already stealth-implemented for one sporting org (the biggest), it's now inconsistent with everything else. This means the work falls on "the regulars" to do the rest of work implementing something they strongly dislike (a fact noted again and again). Rule-enforcing bad design on a volunteer community drives away both contributors and readers, ruins morale, and lowers the quality of everything. This is simply a fact of human nature.

3. Furthermore, despite the process going on for months, it's still incomplete and not ready for RfC. This work is something a competent person can figure out in a weekend, maybe two if they didn't have much wiki domain knowledge. Their excuse is that MMA fans have been obstructing them, but that makes no sense since work done in your own time can be completed regardless of what others do. Their plan eventually came to incorporate some suggested improvements from others, but still none of those contributors are supporting it now.

4. The editing histories of these two + Hasteur (which constitutes their votingblock on anything mma related) shows that they're all ardent deletionists. The histories for Mtking and Hasteur for many months is almost exclusively hunting down mma pages to AfD, plus the ensuing drama. This doesn't suggest they enjoy the sport to say the least. On the other, the Agent00f is clearly thus far mostly an SPA except some kinect material previously. The follow is not citable given privacy concerns so it's "trust me", but it's factually basic: I'm a sometimes MMA fan, and joined the fray because I saw some weirdness in the pages, and found what was going on. It seemed fundamentally unethical at the time so I wrote my two cents, but got trolled in by the clear BS and "warnings" I got in reply. I also know I'm somewhat motivated by anger that gradually built over the week over this as these facts surfaced. Now I would feel I would betray my own sense of ethics if I let this lie. This is simply what happened based on my own recollection of feelings.

5. Let's be honest, we all know that Wiki's rules can be game-theoried by a clique over less organized individuals. From votingblocks to avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, or round-robin around 3RR (noted in section above), there are many moral hazards here that can encourage a small cohesive group to work together against singular targets. Their histories suggest they stick together on the topic, and never go against anyone in the group. I suppose assuming good faith that can be attributed to sheer coincidence. However game theory is math, and not an assumption.

6. One of Hasteur and Mtking's most notable attributes is unsubstantial replies. If you look at their histories, they rarely post more than a couple lines, often littered with WP: tags instead of actual english. I've found better contributors think moderately deep thoughts, that's just a fact. This is strange given that one of their favorite excuses for deletionism is unsubstantial content, or no prose. This is at least hypocritical as a matter of pure logic. Note this does not apply to Treygeek.

7. Speaking of excuses for AfD, another is lack of sources. But that's also ironic because these two often make frivolous accusations which they don't substantiate, which leads to:

8. Another attributes of all 3 is selective replies. There's apparently no Wiki rule for ignoring people, so they usually just ignore any comment or reply where there's no trite WP tag to counterpoint. This tends to frustrate those who are the exact opposite in substantive replies, so when those call them out, they flaunt WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. This is very evident in the whole MMA omnibus thread and it's clearly gaming the system as matter of game theory.

9. To be fair, one of Agent00f's attributes is being too verbose, and centering everything on reasoning/logic instead of human feelings. Based on personal observation, it's a character flaw.

10. Mtking and Hasteur often accuse others first of things they're guilty themselves for. This can be seen by the harassment on my talk page and the AN itself. In the abstract this is a psychological strategy but let's assume good faith so they just do it by accident. The effect it has is still real, though, like this AN. Point 8 above is a good example, too. They're simply very proactive about striking out first at everyone else as an empirical observation.

Agent00f (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact - most of the above "facts" are purely opinion. But hey, why cloud the issue with actual facts supported by evidence? Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not they clearly are not. An "observation" is just that: something you see clearly, like a bottle on table. A bottle on a table is not a matter of opinion. If you need something cited, please point to it specifically and I will oblige. But as a matter of basic fairness you also must oblige to acknowledge in reply that it's observable fact. I didn't cite everything as a time consideration, because the MMA talk page is a mess of a revision history. Please do not think I don't have a very technical background where discerning the difference is critical. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet clearly, they are just your opinion about the matter. BTW - I totally love how you denigrate editors by labeling them. Hmm, how about calling you and those who support you rapid MMA fanboys? So we can have the AFD deletionists vs the fanboys. Hmm, suddenly labels aren't that attractive, are they? Ah, but you'll say, they are AFD deletionists! It's a fact (in my opinion...)! Ah, but others can point out, you are just an MMA fanboy! It's a fact (in their opinion)! And all of the vitriol, hostility and gamemanship you show on the MMA talk page does nothing to help the matter. Except, of course, chase several admins away that were trying to help. What's odd is you've not made a single edit to an MMA article. You do realize that the ultimate way to pull something out of the omnibus is to put the details that would show to anyone that it deserves it's own article. Good grief - UFC 145 probably could be split off without too much work, but that isn't being done. Think about it ... Ravensfire (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not bother if someone calls another a rabid MMA fanboy if they provide a proper definition, just like a bottle on a table is predicated on a definition of "on". Both are observable. Please provide a definition for you statement I'll be happy to accept the label since it changes nothing but the letters. Observable facts are largely linguistically context-free.
2. Also, the admin left of his own free volition. This is a fact as evidenced by his own statement.
3. Since you seem to expect substance from me, it's only fair you provide similar substance in reply. Please substantiate your claims clear as I've done mine.
4. Later I'm working on a set of interpretations based on external reasoning (ie knowledge from outside instead of simple observations) from these facts. This should make the difference abundantly clear. Note in the vernacular, "opinions" is not well defined, so please be much more specific so that we're on the same page.
5. Finally, a slight correction: these are not just facts, but also math as explained within the writing. For example, hypocrisy as formally defined is axiomatic, and easy to deduct. If you have disputes with any of the math, please point out which and we can either go through a thought experiment or the formally deduction. Agent00f (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For #1, can you link to an edit where I claimed to spend a week "full-time" working on UFC 140? If I did make such a claim it was in error, however, I doubt I said that. I spent a week researching the event so that I could write the prose and have it sourced as well as I could. If that is bad, I apologize, I was doing the best I could with the time I had available to me. I would love to see you bring an MMA event article up to the same standards or to a higher standard.

• I believe you claimed that you did this during an no-work week, and you wouldn't be able to resume this kind of commitment afterward, which would imply it was a sizable investment. I commend your commitment. Since we seem to more or less agree on the basics, I'll just reword it. If you wish to specify X hours out of 40 let me know, but I don't think that's necessary.

For #2, the original version of the article lacked the sidebars and raw event results. These other features were added afterwards in order to attempt to work with others interested in the MMA article space. For you to blame the current format of the article exclusively on me and/or Mtking is misplaced blame.

• This plan was specified by Dennis the admin as the result of you and Mtking's work. However, given that none of the those others you speak of want anything to do with it anymore, I think calling it you and Mtking's plan is fairly accurate. I will however amend 3 because not all elements of the design are yours.

For #3... you may not have intended it to be. However, it appears to be a personal attack against any and everyone who has participated in the discussions at WT:MMANOT because you are claiming we are incompetent since the discussion has lasted as long as it has.... thanks.

• This is a bad interpretation of a plain fact. The incompetence is displayed in a plan that no one liked. Had competent work been done in the first place, then the process wouldn't have taken months because people wouldn't have objected so severely. However I sympathize with your distaste for bureaucracy. I'm wasting time here much better spent coming up with proposals a superior plan which everyone except you 3 would like. In fact you and Mtking gaming of the system (wholesale deletion and then 3rr, remember that?) is blocking proposals from being tabled. Bureaucracy often means incompetence blocking ideas that aren't institutional. Such is life.

For #7 "they often make frivolous accusations" (particularly for the "frivolous accusations" I have made).

• It probably wasn't unambiguous that 7 follows from 6, where you are not named. I've clarified it. I hope this doesn't imply that you've internalized the clique. ;) If you want citations for them, simply read the flood of their spam/harassment on my talk page. There is of course much more in the talk page (WP:WARNINGS at every turn), and you should be aware of it from your history on this case.

For #8 I historically don't respond to comments, questions, etc that I do not understand. Also, I try not to immediately respond to talk pages (though I am not always successful) and in discussion that have rapid comments from multiple people it can be easy to miss something to respond to.

• I don't know what you're talking about, please clarify. This is one example of a good reply to a confusing comment instead of ignoring it.

For #10 I stand by the vast majority of my edits and actions on Misplaced Pages. If administrators and/or the larger Misplaced Pages community feels that I have been in error I fully expect them to let me know up to and including talk page warnings, blocks of editing privileges and/or topic bans.

• I apologize I didn't exclude you from this point, that was clearly an error and I've fixed it. You're actually a quite honest person and don't indulge in this like your colleagues.

For the points that I did not address, I don't understand why you bring them up aside from possibly blowing off steam. I had hoped that both in the original WT:MMANOT discussions and my attempts to renew the discussion that everyone could try to work together. Unfortunately, it seems those efforts are failing and I'm not sure why aside from the possibility that my involvement inherently negatively polarizes the situation. Now I must run, UFC on Fox is about to start. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The facts listed here are a large part of the reason why people are very reluctant to work with the 3 amigos, and frankly despise them even if they're not allowed to express it. I've noted above that background facts are important to making decision, like for example this AN. That's why they're placed as a primer for the admin who might not be familiar with the situation otherwise.

Replied Agent00f (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Situation

This is based on my own value judgement and external logic (ie uses things not inherent in the observation). It's separated from the above because it is not 100% provably true.

1. It seems what happened is that when the group above was warring against mma pages, a few mma fans took matters into their own hands. This had a unfortunate polarizing effect on wiki administration whereby the latter became the "bad guys" as an aggregate, and the former by extension and axiomatic symmetry the good guys. This gave the former considerable more leeway when gaming the system. There is extensive psych research for this if citation is necessary.

2. Allowing a small disinterested clique to systematically ruin a whole functional community on wiki is a stain on the wiki reputation, even if it's by accident. By doing nothing to dissuade (ie allowing) gaming of the system, it paints a picture that the org is more about the letter of the law than the spirit. It defines the site as a bureaucratic nightmare instead of good judgement. This is fundamentally discouraging to smart and creative contributors which is what any site needs.

3. As a matter of good judgement, there are two issues to consider here: the good of the few against the many, and legal consistency. The former is obvious, but the later often encourages enforcing the letter of the law if only to minimize exceptions. However, in that case we also have to consider that allowing the precedent that a few people can game the site rules for months without punishment.

4. This seems a clear case where a few (again, perhaps only by circumstance) took over the reigns of power by abusing the common rules. In a way it's the wort kind of takeover since they've gotten to make substantial decisions even though they have no stake in the longer term outcome. This is very akin to predatory takeover or private equity business in equivalent function, which are very well documented cases. In all these circumstances, demoralization at the lower ranks and moral hazards abound. Given this has already happened, the question is how to resolve it: silence the whistle-blowers, turn a blind eye, solve the problem by closing loopholes, or solve the problem by sanctioning people've taken advantage of them (even if they only happen upon it). The decision is an easy one to make, and it's certainly not mine to make, but the necessary info to do it was presented.

Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Call for sanctions

Administrators Surely this 3 ring circus has gone on long enough. The thread a few days ago coupled with these 2 threads should illuminate beyond any shadow of a doubt the disruptive actions of Agent00f who will filibuster, claim bureaucratic abuse, claim anything in the book just to slow down the process of building consensus regarding the MMA articles.

I do acknowledge that my own actions in response to Agent00f have been less than exemplary, however I challenge you to find any other editor who has dealt with the same intensity and duration of abuse of community guidelines as we (MtKing, TreyGeek, and myself) have and still maintain the same level of composure.

I call for an indefinite block on Agent00f on grounds of deliberate disruption, lack of Assuming Good Faith, Personal Attacks, and deliberate obfuscation after being warned repeatedly being asked to strike assumptions of bad faith and to discontinue their disruptive behavior.

My name is Hasteur and I endorse this set of proposed sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so much admin shopping just like the last ANI it's not even funny. First, thorough explanations are not "Obfuscation". Some things in the world are just complicated. Second, sometimes facts can reflect badly, but that's no a function of facts, but interpretation. Just like a bottle on the table that you were supposed to put away can reflect badly on one's sense of responsibility. I suppose it's possible of all who sees this one will oblige and you'll get your way in complete violation of the shopping rule. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The user in question has a perfectly clean block log. Calling for an indefinite block at this point is inappropriate and easily seen as pointy. Please follow proper procedures and an escalating block system. Calling for this right away seems like an attempt to remove an opponent in a dispute, even if that isn't what it is meant as. Silverseren 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have striked my request for an indef block, however I point to the below created section, their blocking by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and their WP:NOTTHEM groundwork laying on their talk page in response to their block. While I prefer to see the good things in editors, I suspect that no change in behavior will result from the preventative measure that was taken. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reflections on the Ridiculousness of this AN

1. It was clearly created in ridiculously bad faith. Mtking wholesale deletes a new comment, which is a direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule and then has the nerve to FORUMSHOP and ADMINSHOP by creating this AN over his own violation.
2. When I tried to revert back this blatant disregard for wiki rules, Mtking and Treygeek team up to run around 3RR together, and Mtking creates yet another AN to FORUMSHOP/ADMINSHOP against me so that his blatant disregard for policy can't stopped.
3. When that didn't get anywhere, Mtking instead attempts subterfuge to make sure the comment is never seen.

This AN is basically an attempt to hid one comment by either keeping it deleted or blocking the user who created it. It's nothing bad faith to the Nth degree.

Frankly Mtking's actions here an insult to the intelligence of admins by assuming they're can't see through these flagrant attempts at flaunting wiki standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Blackmane's solution. Delete all MMA articles, SALT them, blacklist the acronym MMA ... guys can't play well with others - we get DAILY edit-wars, ANI filings, AFD's, PROD's, CSD's ... what a load of crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about you guys go create a MMA wiki on Wikia? Then you can all fight with each other and we don't have to read about it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:

  1) Some editors attempt to apply certain policies and guidelines to a series of articles, such as WP:ROUTINE, WP:IRS, WP:NSPORT, WP:CRYSTAL and the like.

  2) A handful of contrarians, whose arguments tend to rest on illegitimate grounds such as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, spam some bulletin boards with oft-obscene exhortations to "take the mofos down," whereupon the effort is flooded by wave after wave of SPAs, sockpuppets and meatpuppets, for whom civility and NPA rules are sick jokes.

  3) Although quite literally dozens of these sock/meatpuppets are indef blocked, for some astonishing reason, a number of parties are taking their filibustering seriously, and this organized, canvassed disruption is allowed to persist.

  These people do not care about Misplaced Pages. They don't care about our policies, our guidelines, our customs and our rules. They don't merely admit that they're bent on disrupting anyone who attempts to thwart their use of Misplaced Pages as a webhost for their information, they boast about it. Why in the hell are we letting them do it, and why would we want thereby to admit to the world that a well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies and guidelines to impose their will? Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• " well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies"
• The problem has rather been the opposite. The existance of many motivated but unorganized "SPA's" (mainly wiki contributors and users) vs an smaller entrench wiki "elite" (observations which no one disagrees with, given that it's your own statement) is by definition a demonstrate that a "well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies" against a majority of actual users/stakeholder. Committee decisions reached via uninformed opinions, by people who don't understand the situation, against the interests of the afflicted userbase is the main reason why we're still here after many months. It's notable that ALL of the dozens of regular MMA contributors/stakeholders who were part of the process at the start have left or been pushed out. Please think about this per your recommendation above. Agent00f (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Conditionally Support Blackmane's solution. However, the parties targeted are the wrong ones. According to reality thishas been a war between a very few but active AfD enthusiasts and the rest of the community who contribute/read material on wiki. The former are the only ones who've been here since the start of this destructive ordeal and they've had their second chance about 5 chances ago. Everyone else has left, often in disgust. Of course those left get to point the finger. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many opportunities before the wiki powers that be says enough with epic failure? Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd partially meant my comment to be facetious albeit with a very substantial portion of seriousness. The MMA project is becoming the very definition of a walled garden. This is the last thing an open project needs. This is Misplaced Pages not fricking Fanboypedia. And purely for my own benefit, how does one go about vaping an entire project? If this rather drastic idea gains traction, it might be worth putting it up for proper community consideration Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that this is going to require an arbcom case placing discretionary sanctions of the sort that exist in the Balkans articles, i.e. disruption by SPAs and IPs can be immediately vaped (blocked) by a patrolling admin. The MMA fanboys will never want to play on their own Wiki because it will never get the traffic that Misplaced Pages does. When you combine hundreds of meatpuppets with not only ignorance of rules but an outright refusal to believe that rules apply to them, you get this mess. We can't feasibly remove all MMA from the encyclopedia, but we can block all of this ridiculousness on sight. Chillllls (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say whether Arbcom would take this case on without the full gamut of dispute resolution cards being played, but given the sheer scale of disruption that the MMA fanboys are causing I don't think there would be much option. However, that doesn't really solve the problem, it merely enhances the administrative workload because the fanboys will not give up. The best option may still come down to nuking the project from orbit. A RFC may be the next thing to consider on this. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be tarred by both sides for saying this, but 80% of the MMA content is not a problem. It's only the hyper motivated enthusiast crowd that is causing a problem. Heck, up to when some editors came on the scene we were nearly ready to get the blue ribbon RfC moving along so that we could finish the debate about how to protect the smaller articles that are already here and how to ensure that MMA is covered reasonably. It was suggested previously that the way to get a discretionary sanctions like regime passed would be to go for General Sanctions at WP:AN. I've personally been holding back from using this route because I've wanted to demonstrate good faith above and beyond a WikiSaint so that claims of being biased against MMA topics can be deflected by the aforementioned good faith. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is expected of this ever snowballing ANI?

Exactly what is expected to be achieved here? This started off as Mtking+Hasteur vs Agent00f and it's basically blown up into something about MMA as a whole. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't noted yet, the prior attempts at resolving this problem only seem to have a few common denominators. Basic logic would dictate that repeating the same wouldn't generate novel results. However, your interpretation of the same info yields the opinion that the solution rather involves nuking everyone else outside the common denominator of previous failures. This isn't necessarily a terrible plan outside of its basic destructiveness, but do note that it's those outside that circle who will be saddled with the resulting rules/plans. In comparison, nuking the whole subject (including all contributors) seems much more consistent with the that general scheme. Agent00f (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• cough* Notification *cough* You make a suggestion of an IBAN between me and Agent00f, then give credit for "the crap they've been through". Inconsistent much? This entire thread has transformed from it's initial purpose of Agent00f screaming harassment that Mtking and I were perpetrating against him, into a request for undissolveduninvolved admins to start policing the community guidelines (which still has yet to occur), to a examination of how Agent00f has conducted themselves, to a ill planned request for an indefinite block (which I have since retracted), to a further look at how to improve the MMA article space. I will admit to being somewhat uncivil in some of my communication with Agent00f, but I contest the need of an IBAN as I have not been warned once regarding my interaction. Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd drop a notice on Agent00f's talk page about this sub-thread but I don't think any posting from me at this time would be well received at all. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just don't screw up the formatting or you'll get barked at. Ravensfire (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I asked the question whether my suggestion is off the scale. I bolded it to make it stand out not to make it a formal proposal. I'm more than happy to strike it out if you have issue with it. My preference would be to have at least something come out of this extended discussion and a rather extreme suggestion was hopefully going to push for a compromising position from others. A rather large amount of time and discussion has gone into this and to have it closed merely as "no admin action required" is, to my mind at least, nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that admin action (or involvement) is required, but jumping to the level of IBAN is unwarranted. It's been my understanding that interaction bans are for when there is mutual persistent incompatibility with both editors or one going and harassing another. While I don't think we're at that level, I think an uninvolved experienced editor taking Agent00f as a mentoree would be the best way to modify the issues that have been identified while at the same time allowing Agent00f to to continue contributing to the community. I'm staying away from other/further recommendations as I precieve myself to be already very involved with Agent00f's behavior. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"unwarranted"??? How many kb is this thread? Clearly that word cannot be used here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unwarranted!" There, I used it.

(ahem) I'd say this has gone beyond the scope of ANI at this point. And I personally feel IBANs are useless, as they're far too easy to game around. The whole MMA issue needs to go to ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects with related walled garden problems

To be truly honest, the underlying issue is about notability and I think it affects more than just MMA. The core question is simply do major MMA pay-per-view events, such as those held regularly by UFC, meet the notability requirements with just the basic fight information (location, crowd, payouts) and results? That question isn't limited to just MMA though. Take tennis. The tennis project's notability guidelines say that top tier tournaments are notable, but secondary ones aren't, but with 15 seconds of effort, I find 2010 GEMAX Open. For all the MMA drama, any of UFC event articles have far more information than that article. With a bit more effort, you can find similar articles for many other sports. I'll give the MLB and NFL folks huge credit that you don't see as much of this in those areas, especially in football. I have no question that any give NFL game, especially a big rivalry game, generates more and lasting coverage than the average UFC PPV event. There are some attempts to answer the notability question (when it's not being derailed by someone declaring a revolution), but it's a bigger question than just MMA. There are large number of articles across Misplaced Pages that are simply results for various tournaments / events. Per WP:ROUTINE, those should be simple and easy AFD's. Anyone care to start trying that? You can see the madness from MMA, I somehow think other sports will be just as bad if not worse. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Thank you for being thoughtful. Unfortunately these aren't novel insights, but rather tend to crop up each of the half dozen attempts at resolving this issue. Even more unfortunate, historically the persons bring up these insights and subsequent solutions have been ignored or otherwise driven off. Had they been acted on, there's no doubt this would've over months ago and probably set an excellent precedent for all other other entries of the type (you've noted). This isn't at all to trivialize what you're saying (esp since I entirely agree), just noting that we've already been here before. IOW, being more thoughtful about the specifics is very unfortunately not the solution.
2. As mentioned, these types of thoughtful replies constitute the minority on the subject. In fact through direct observation of this AN as a microcosm of the broader dilemma, we can see that it's mostly just throwing around trite WP:BULLSHIT. It's uncertain whether this is simply a relection of an opinion that application of "established" processes takes priority over thinking about what's going on; or at this point, implies a lack of capacity to self-refection or understand 1. Without the kind of detail/insight which you're trying to provide, it's not possible to resolve problems except by accident, and we haven't been that lucky due to WP:TLDR and WP:ASSUMETHISWORKS. Put another way, this is a classic case where the aggregate level of intelligence displayed has been insufficient to solve it, but this kind of observation is inherently difficult to appreciate.
3. This specific proposition of "nuke it from orbit" is the perfect reflection of the mindset and situation just described. The general idea is not only that topics which aren't "encyclopedic" don't belong here, but issues which can't be resolved by the same mindset don't belong here. While this isn't a bad point to make since compatibility with the wiki zeitgeist is a concern, but the solution proposed has nothing to do with the broader goal of serving wiki users. My main observation on it is that it's a mindset and idea mainly propagated by those with no stake in the outcome: iow, "I don't care for this subject so let's just get rid of it." Agent00f (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the link that Ravensfire posted for the tennis tournament, if you go to the category there are literally hundreds of articles which are little more than results scorecards and draws. Interestingly, sampling just a few almost all of them were created by just one editor. In fact, I randomly sampled about 30 articles from that category for 2009 and almost every one was created by them, with the exception of maybe 1 or 2. The ones I sampled in 2010 were created by another user. This is a little off topic but this surface scratching is only just revealing the scale of the issue here. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; these type of walled gardens are commonplace in many Wikiprojects, even those that don't focus on sports topics. When an attempt is made by a non-project editor to enforce what should be a site-wide notability policy for inclusion or an element of the MOS, the project editors come out of the woodwork to give their reasons as to why articles on such-and-such topic are exempt from the rules (mostly clever variations of ILIKEIT). It's not that the MMA project is the worst when it comes to stuff like this, they just have the most visible (and arguably the most obtuse) IP meatpuppets at this time. Chillllls (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Projects sometimes set their own notability rules or style conventions &c (with style, it's more often the habit of one or two prolific editors, rather than a written guideline); this is not inherently a bad thing, but when those project rules conflict with en.wikipedia rules, we get lots of drama and timewasting. In terms of notability, it often leans towards inclusionism, but not always. IIRC there was one case where a project had a spring-clean and took a bunch of articles to AfD which appeared to fall short of the project's notability guideline even though some passed the GNG by a considerable margin. I stumbled across one project which had a very widely used template which is inherently incompatible with the MOS. There are limits to centralisation - and I wouldn't call for millions of ritual edits to shift articles from project-style to MOS-style - but the conflicts between projects rules and en.wikipedia rules are a problem which we should try to mitigate. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've split this section off as it's not really related to the situation above and may just move this to the talk page, although we could continue this discussion on one of our talk pages until we can come up with some sensible plan of action (if such is required or desirable). We're coming to the point we're some of us have identified a deep rooted issue and it looks like this really requires a much wider community input than just a few people having a "hmmmm" moment on ANI. I'm not against any particular wikiptoject (although the MMA makes me sigh...repeatedly) but allowing each project to go off and establish their own rules and guidelines outside those of the core policies is going to be a nightmare to fix. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's been a problem in the diacritics wars, too. It's not a crisis but we really ought to do something... somewhere... bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I contest there's a back room deal going on to make a lower standard for MMA than the rest of en.WP. We're having the discussion at the SNG page for MMA to help define a very specific set of "It Must Have"s so that the MMA community can know exactly what is needed.Hasteur (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. There needs to be a stringent set of absolute minimum baseline notability requirements that all sports projects should adhere to with no loosening. Projects should be free to build on the requirements but not weaken them to their liking so that articles can scrape by with notability. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) and I have been somewhat tempered over the Bradley/Breanna Manning issue at the moment; I made a comment on Talk:Bradley Manning that a person who ignores a reliable source that Manning identified as female was either "dense or bigoted", which has inflamed tempers to the point that he has made this comment towards me. It's a severe personal attack, and would be blockable even without his prior comments leading to the "only warning". Sceptre 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Andy calling you a turd is wrong. You trolling him on his own talk page and then running to ANI so you can win a content dispute is also wrong. Both of you should start acting like adults. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  After being warned not to make personal attacks, and then making such a blistering personal attack, going to ANI is the next step since the closure of the personal attack noticeboard years ago. Sceptre 01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Block everyone. -— Isarra ༆ 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  (ec)I notice that the personal attack warning was from you, that you jumped straight to the final warning, and that everyone else who has commented on Andy's talk page regarding that has defended him. You should both settle your differences without name-calling or running to mommy. If you can't or won't do that, then I back Isarra's recommendation. Reyk _YO! 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • • Given that his conduct was close to harassment, given that he was publicly attacking me in several forums where several other people were constructively discussing the issue, and given that he was blocked six months ago for making this comment, a block is indeed warranted. Sceptre 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at your (Sceptre) chutzpah. I am the editor that Sceptre called "dense or bigoted". I asked him to retract it, and he didn't retract or respond. Two admins asked him to retract, and he didn't retract or respond. And yet here he is complaining about Andy calling him a bigot. It's just a bit much. As far as I'm concerned, Sceptre has been on a rampage about the Manning article and gender identity such that anyone who disagrees with him has to be stupid, bigoted, or god knows what else. Oh, and by the way, last time I checked, WP:WQA was alive and kicking, although he may be referring to some other board of which I'm unaware.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• What Bbb said. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That I may have attacked you -- and I retract the comment as referred to you -- does not have any bearing on the fact of Andy's egregious personal attack. There is no doctrine of unclean hands on Misplaced Pages. Sceptre 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, there is a concept of unclean hands on Misplaced Pages, and particularly on this board. Also, although I will accept your retraction, I note that it comes very late and probably only so you can move on with your report on Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This all started when Sceptre decided to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning's gender identity in the article, against prior consensus, and based on a selective reading of reports of private conversations Manning had. At no point has Manning publicly stated that he wishes to be known as a 'she', named 'Breanna'. Sceptre is pushing a POV, and using a vulnerable person in no position to respond to do so. When asked to desist, and conform to policy, Sceptre has instead responded by accusations of 'bigotry', 'transphobia' and who knows what else. If he has the gall to make further personal attacks on me on my talk page under a posting that refers explicitly to WP:NPA that Sceptre posted, I can see no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't respond in kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's comments during this protracted Manning battle have been, not surprisingly, incisive. They have also been remarkably sensitive to Manning. That said, words like "turd" and "bigot" (I'm assuming he said them, I haven't verified it) shouldn't be used, even when strongly provoked. Although I suppose I'm somewhat biased, Sceptre still had no business coming here. He's done nothing but provoke from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensitive or insensitive? I don't think it's sensitive to repeatedly and deliberately refer to someone who (privately, mind, but still) said they didn't want to be remembered as male. Sceptre 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

...and currently refers to himself as 'a boy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Source? There's no way that you can read the Lamo logs and can come away with a perspective that Manning was comfortable with being male. Sceptre 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not being "comfortable with being male" isn't the same thing as wishing to be publicly identified as a female named 'Breanna'. Manning clearly wasn't comfortable about a lot of things - and I've seen no evidence that he is comfortable with being used as a convenient fall-guy/gal for your POV-pushing antics. If Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female, he can say so - until then it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to arbitrarily 'gender reassign' him on the basis of a selective reading of his private conversations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede on the name issue, but not on the gender issue: in her chats with Lamo, she talks about how she was uncomfortable with her male body, about her presenting as female while on leave in Boston, and her plans to transition upon discharge. In the New York source, her counsellor talks about the fact that she was "very solid" on feeling female. We use both thing as sources in the article; if they're admissible in the article to source the facts as currently presented in "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge", then they're admissible as confirmation to her gender identity. It's not a "arbitrary" change at all. Sceptre 04:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are 'willing to concede' or not is irrelevant. You are engaging in soapboxing and POV-pushing to assign an gender identity to Manning that he has not publicly identified with - that is what 'identity' means - and no, the fact that we consider a source as reliable for one thing doesn't make it reliable for every ridiculous bit of spin you can put on it to support something else entirely. You have no right whatsoever to use Misplaced Pages as a platform for your POPV-pushing nonsense. Bradley Manning will remain Bradley manning until he publicly asserts otherwise, regardless of your bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

She's already been "outed", and we reflect that in the section "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge"; I'd like to hear your reason why the sources are okay to source the fact that she "feels female" and was going to transition, but not okay to change the gender. And no, that isn't what "identity" means, unless you're saying all the closeted LGBT people aren't really LGBT; you're still gay even if you're still in the closet. If she weren't arrested, Manning would have been discharged, and intended to start the transition process. She was fully aware that she was probably going to get arrested, and expressed fears about being described as male. (see: the Lamo caht logs) Sceptre 14:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet more of the same bullshit. You are in no position to make any such assertions. And no, we shouldn't be using the source cited to state that Manning "feels female" - we don't. We write that he apparently wrote this to an unnamed gender counselor in 2009: and the same source: and this same counselor repeatedly refers to Manning as 'he', and makes clear that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state not just because of his uncertainties over gender, but because of his direct involvement in military actions which were leading to the deaths of innocent civilians. Manning was in crisis, and as the Lamo logs make clear, unsure of his own mental stability: The very next statement he makes after his comment that "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as boy" he says "i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ..." Any credible reading of these comments can only conclude that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state (and incidentally, still describing himself as 'a boy') - this isn't an assertion that he wishes to change his public gender identity. It isn't an assertion of anything, except his own mental state - which he seems to have been well aware of as being confused, and conflicted. To take such comments from the isolated private conversations of a disturbed individual as 'evidence' that Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female is not only 'original research' engaged in to promote a particular POV, but morally reprehensible, and utterly incompatible with the sexual politics you claim to espouse. You have no right whatsoever to cherry-pick sources to 'reassign' Manning, and that you chose to do so suggests that your own motivations are questionable, to say the least. One final point - more comments by Manning from the Lamo logs : "8 months ago, if you’d have asked me whether i wanted i would identify as female, i’d say you were crazy", "that started to slip very quickly, as the stresses continued and piled up", "i had about three breakdowns… successively worse, each one revealing more and more of my uncertainty and emotional insecurity". Not only is Manning stating that he is having a breakdown, but he says that 8 months earlier he had no thoughts of identifying as female at all. If you are going to pick cherries, it is sensible to see what else is in the tree... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're treading close to saying that trans people with mental illnesses aren't sure of their gender identity, which is also offensive. And Manning did wish to be publicly female; she did appear so while on leave in Boston. (And gender identity is fluid; we don't have a source saying she self-identified as male after May 2010, understandable as she's still under arrest awaiting trial, so we use the most recent self-identification, which is female). Sceptre 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"gender identity is fluid". Precisely. Which makes your ridiculous claims that Manning currently wishes to be identified as a female named Breanna even less tenable. And how the heck do you know what Manning's most recent self-identification is? Perhaps fortunately, we don't have access to every private conversation he has. You are not Manning's spokesperson. As for 'offensiveness', straw man arguments about something I didn't say to support your own POV-pushing unilateral 'gender reassignment' of a troubled individual are infinitely worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

JaParker Jones, Agnes Torres Sulca, Paige Clay, and Brandy Martell didn't make public statements to the media about their gender identity either, but we refer to all four of them as transgender women. In any case, regardless of conduct, you should know better than to refer to someone as a "moronic little turd" when a) you've been blocked for personal attacks in the past and b) you were warned not to make personal attacks. (Also, nice appeal to emotion there) Sceptre 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead people rarely make public statements. Nice appeal to emotion there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that a trans person needs to make a public statement to the media to be recognised as such, then we should refer to Jones, Sulca, Clay, Martell as men. As it is, all four and Manning identified as female (which is all we need under MOS:IDENTITY), and presented as female when she could. Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female (see the Lamo chat logs), like the other four. This is a digression, mind. Sceptre 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A digression from being boomeranged, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female". Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. What we do know is that at the moment Manning has neither done so, nor made any public statement that such a 'transition' is desired. Since when has it been morally justifiable to 'out' people as transgendered based on a POV-pushing reading of cherry-picked sources? Please put the crystal ball away, come down from the soapbox, and explain how you know what 'would' have happened, and why your knowledge of this should be seen a a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How about everyone here calm down and just chill. I'm always amazed that in working on articles on living people, the people who work the hardest to enforce it (see Point 6) by saying we're not allowed to hold, or god forbid express on occasion, negative opinions on anyone are the same people who are often the source of a great deal of incivility towards other editors. I'm not blaming anyone in particular in this instance, as I think blocks can be avoided if everyone here does what I'm doing now; kicking back with a Tiger beer watching a program on Billy Martin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would never mention something like this, ever, but the parallels are so very extreme, because yes, there is not so much 'just' insults and personal attacks going on, but insults and personal attacks that should be framed on the NPA page as what not to do. But that said, this is precisely the embodiment of the term 'consenting adults' and Sceptre, you need to look a lot less like someone turning up at a hospital in a bondage outfit saying your injuries are entirely someone else's fault. Because the parallels to things like this (DO NOT LOOK) explicit text content are just going to keep people laughing at the situation, tragic but true, because if you don't dress up in leather and ask to be spanked he will leave you alone, problem solved.

Further the 'only solution is to ban the lot of you' idea, whilst it is quite valid, is also going to be a drawn out process if it has any chance of success at all, not just because Andy is only defensive by nature, but because with God as my witness everyone wants to see what happens next, there are some things that you just can't look away from, and this is one of those things. Everyone with a remote control to switch off the TV has slow if not paralysed hands right now. Penyulap ☏ 09:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks to me like a BLP violation. If this Manning weren't under arrest for espionage, he would have no notability at all. As it is, it looks like an editor is trying to make some implicit connection between his alleged gender identity and his alleged espionage - either trying to justify it, or to smear the subject. Either way, it's not good, and Andy the Gump's response, while somewhat over the top, is understandable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block of Sceptre for this page move, and if that's not enough, edit-warring to repeat it a quarter hour later. Small tadpole to AtG for rising to a pretty obvious bait. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The OP's complaint does not square with his user page philosophy, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine with that philosophy. The right to freedom of expression does not preclude taking their soapbox away. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it's not fine. He demands the right of free opinion and expression for himself, and gripes when someone else exercises their own right of free opinion and expression. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
        • ... I don't think you quite grasped what I wrote. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences of that expression. You're free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but it's well established that you still go to jail for doing so. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
          • No. He quotes, "...without interference." So he wants to express anything he wants, unrestricted, but doesn't extend the same right to others. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Ah, I missed that bit. yeah, that does make it rather hypocritical. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Boomerang block of Sceptre. Andy's position has rectitude even if his barbs are too quickly thrown. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block Sceptre and consider topic banning. Going against consensus, gaming the system, and refusal to get the point. At this point, his involvement is disruptive as he is here admittedly as an advocate with an agenda.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• We would never refer to somebody with a stable genetic identity except as the gender they wish to be considered, but I don't think any one including Manning is under the impression that anything about gender identity in this instance is stable. We can't change on the basis of private conversations even if reported in the press, or by inference. It's hard to apply BLP when a person is undeniably a public figure, but for a site such as this to make such a change strike me as hopelessly wrong. I've gone to some trouble revising these three sentences to avoid gender-based pronouns , & it took me several rounds to do it. But in the context of the article what Sceptre is doing is pointy. I think the consensus is strongly against Sceptre, but there is no reason to block unless they continues. If they do , it's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You are Belorn? That is the account that made that edit which you just described.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I assumed DGG was referring to his own last post here - it is almost impossible to write about Manning in gender-neutral language: English just doesn't work that way, and we can't take it upon ourselves to revise it so it does, as worthy a project as that might seem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - see 7 May Newsweek article thereon ...

“I’m trying to play off the civil rights card. Thus all the gay rights stuff on the side. My life goal is the expansion of human knowledge, and the elimination of the earth-moon system as the boundary of human influence."

Which seems to mean Misplaced Pages may be on a snipe hunt with this. Collect (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the intent or viewpoint of that article is to show what a worthless soldier Manning was, then it does a good job. Including that kind of material is still questionable, BLP-wise. It's an attempt to put Manning on trial inside wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Berean - block Sceptre and consider topic banning. I think DGG's view, although understandable, is overly cautious considering this thread and every subsequent comment or action Sceptre has taken since backing off from the more egregious moving the article and moving it yet again. Beween a block and a topic ban, I would go with a topic ban and only block if he reoffends. I will give Sceptre the benefit of the doubt that there may be articles involving other topics that he can productively contribute to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a little reluctant to get involved here, but I want to explain the problem to Sceptre in simple terms: Until Manning identifies as female publicly (rather than saying conflict, etc.), any assignment of gender other than the previous public identity (male) is synthesis. Also, you're neglecting a possibility: Manning has indicated zhe (I'll be polite to your POV) does not wish to be male, but that in no way guarantees zhe wishes to be female. Zhe may be trying to escape the gender binary. - Jorgath (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  She has self-identified as female, although to her counsellor (see the New York source). While there's a debate on said counsellor's ethics, it still doesn't change the fact that it's in a reliable source (otherwise, it wouldn't be used in the article). We don't have a later source where she identifies as male, so by MOS:IDENTITY, we should use the most recent self-identification, which is female. MOS:IDENTITY did not (at the time of the move) require "public" identification, it's required self-identification as reflected in a reliable source: there is a subtle difference between the two. Sceptre 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still trying to justify your arbitrary 'gender-reorientation' on the basis of this single quote from a private conversation that just happens to have become public, and ignoring all the comments - including your own - to the effect that Manning's 'gender identity' appear to have been 'fluid' at the time, and cannot be taken as definitive statement of Manning's current position on the issue? It looks like it. It also looks to me as if you are intent on making a martyr of yourself to some imaginary cause over this (jealous of Manning perhaps?). Well whoop-de-doo, good for you - now fuck off and troll elsewhere, you moronic little turd. Oh-er, I've said it again! Now go and report it on your facebook page. You are clearly a scumbag, exploiting Manning to push your own bizarre agenda, which seems to have more to do with your own narcissistic desire for attention than any concern for Manning, sexual politics, or anything but your own infantile desires. If Manning wishes to publicly identify as a woman named 'Breanna', we will report the fact. We don't however give a shit about your opinions as to whether he should or not, or whether a particular private conversation can be taken as 'evidence' that he has made such a decision. That is an outright falsification. You are a liar, a troll, and given your repeated exploitation of a vulnerable person to push your narcissistic agenda, a moronic little turd. My initial comment was entirely correct... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Read this - "Feminist, trans advocates should support Bradley Manning", by Rainey Reitman, BMSN Steering Committee. March 1, 2012. (Originally published in the Washington Blade.): "If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". "...he didn’t ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise". AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gee, Jorgath, why on earth would you want to get him started again? Anyway, I suppose it's just more confirmation that a topic ban is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gender identity is irrelevant and non-notable. This Manning character is charged with espionage, not cross-dressing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, the allegation appears to be bogus. This support website calls him "Bradley" throughout. No "Breanna". Maybe they didn't get the message. OR, maybe the whole "gender identity" thing is a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic issue

• Note: I removed the unproductive thread and personal attacks from Andy's talk page, and advised the parties to seek dispute resolution. Andy restored them (contrary to policy). Both parties need to realize that not only is this unproductive, but that the other party is acting in good faith over the content - however strange their positions may seem to each other. The personal attacks should be removed, the parties go their separate ways or to DR. This type of thing brings the project into disrepute. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
  

Can you please cite the policy which permits you to arbitrarily remove material from user talk pages? I am unaware of any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA - you do not WP:OWN your talk page. And I would think you would realise that re-adding the personal attack is repeating the offence. A comical user name does not exempt you from NPA. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

• (Using some automation)???? — Ched :  ?  20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And WP:NPA entitles you to remove the entire thread, including the comments of others? Actually, I see nothing in WP:NPA that justifies you removing the lot, replacing it with commentary of your own , and adding a meaningless edit summary "automation assisted". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Timbo's Rule No. 10 - "Anyone who says 'Misplaced Pages is not censored' has never paid particularly close attention to the way talk pages are treated by third parties. (Feb. 2012)" Carrite (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• One would think that when under an ArbCom case over his use of automated tools, Rich would use a bit more common sense! Boomerang spinning… —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you to find another thread for the boomerang though? We really don't need this thread to get even more convoluted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump making personal attacks against another user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(moved from bottom, was new thread) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) very recently made a series of personal attacks against another user here, here, and here. The user was given their second 4im for WP:NPA this week. The user's response was to reiterate their attack. The user was reported to WP:AIV but I was told to take it to ANI. Here it is. --TreyGeek (talk)

Hm. This is one of those cases where Andy flips out and loses it, and will likely get admonished or worse. I wish the underlying issue could be addressed; Andy seems to (once again) be trying to enforce BLP stuff, admittedly in his own peculiar way... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue is really getting users involved in the discussion a bit emotional/involved - a bit of backing of is needed - Youreallycan 05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that Sceptre has persistently attempted to justify his unilateral 'gender reassignment' of Bradley Manning, against the express wishes of the individual concerned - which he could easily have discovered for himself if he'd bothered to look in the obvious places. As long as Sceptre gets away with this disgusting exploitation of a vulnerable and disturbed individual with no means to respond, I will continue to expose Sceptre as the narcissistic little lying troll he is - and I don't give a fuck whether this gets me blocked or not. I'm less than convinced at this point that he is the 'LGBT/feminist activist' that he claims to be anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Impolite language, but it clearly appears after looking over the discussions previously that this Sceptre editor is pushing a POV. I would say it is more likely to do damage to Bradley Manning's reputation to push the POV that Sceptre is pushing than to help it. Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of trying to forcibly 'out' people, and this type of attitude is diametrically opposed to the underlying principles of WP:BLP. I realize that this might not be considered outing by some, but it is a very similar situation and I would expect some degree of frustration to build after repeatedly telling Sceptre to acknowledge the spirit of BLP. I would suggest that other editors become involved in the debate in order to de-escalate it, or alternatively, the article could just be locked. With the article locked, the editors could debate this at leisure without someone deciding it is time to unilaterally decide a person's gender for them. The media sources use male, it isn't a BLP violation to use a person's observable or obvious appearance and natural gender, but it is BLP to 'expose' or 'promote' something that the person doesn't appear to be or simply isn't promoting strongly themselves. If a person appeared to be a woman, and was passing, we wouldn't arbitrarily put a 'fact' that she was born a man into a Misplaced Pages article unless that appeared to be something the individual was comfortable with. In this situation, you have an obviously male individual, who some are pushing, notably Sceptre, to identify as a woman, for whatever personal satisfaction that brings Sceptre. This is already a politically charged and contentious case, and Misplaced Pages doesn't need to bring additional potentially contentious things into the article unless they are directly relevant, supported by sources, and can pass muster under the WP:BLP policy. Andy, relax, take a breath, but I have to say I applaud you trying to keep the article on a good track. -- Avanu (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Spectre: WP:TROUT @Andy: Please be nice. Are we done here now? Arcandam (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read further and looked into the matter, commenting on where Andy has said, as linked to above, "Sceptre, fuck off and troll elsewhere. blah blah blah" well what do you know, looking at Sceptre's consistent behaviour ignoring community standards, policy, guidelines and assistance from other editors, then I would say, if I may borrow a wordsmiths phrase.... Sceptre, fuck off and troll elsewhere.

So put me down for whatever AndyTheGrump is having, Arcandam has the right approach at the bare minimum, whereas a block for Spectre is indicated, TreyGeek, have you read up on this enough ? Penyulap ☏ 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if I put my mind to it, I'm sure I could be a really good Troll myself, but I really doubt if I could match Spectre's skill in choosing the very best weakpoints of the community in question, the wider[REDACTED] community, and still stay under the radar. I take my hat off to him for getting away with it this long.

Generally a simple thing like calling a boy a girl or calling a woman a man is the sort of thing that simply doesn't matter, water off a ducks back. For other people it can be more important to them. In that community, it can reasonably be expected by anyone that people are more sensitive than normal to gender identity considering the lengths that they go to, drugs, surgery, social and family stigma. So if a reasonable person like you, the reader, wanted to troll that community or an individual within it, what could you come up with better than to rename an individuals article from one gender to another ? In this case, rather than think 'oh Fudge what have I done' when it's been brought up by other editors and the mistake corrected, no change in course or intent is apparent. Penyulap ☏ 07:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose topic ban Spectre from LGBT articles

It can be reasonably expected by a reasonable editor that some issues like gender identity are a sensitive issue to the Lesbian / Gay / Bisexual / Transsexual community (guessing the acronym here). Spectre seems to lack the sensitivity required for editing these articles without upsetting the[REDACTED] community, or to learn fast enough to prevent continuing disruption. I propose Spectre should focus editing on unrelated topics only. Penyulap ☏ 07:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, trolling, or both. I support a topic ban on LGBT articles, broadly defined (including all LGBT BLP's). Arcandam (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he should be restricted from editing those articles. After all, they have nothing to do with the Bradley Manning article. The idea of pre-emptive punishment on the off chance he does something wrong is an outrage. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC))

If we wanted to punish we would ask for a block, not for a topic ban. We are asking for a topic ban because Spectre has demonstrated an inability to understand what is wrong with those edits. If I AGF I think he does not understand what is wrong with those edits (and we do not topic ban him pre-emptively but after he demonstrated he does not understand what is wrong with those edits but is nonetheless willing to make edits like those). If I ABF I think he is trolling. In both cases a topic ban would be helpful. Arcandam (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) to head off further outrage. Penyulap ☏ 08:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's way, way, way over-the-top to topic ban me from all LGBT articles; doing so would prevent me from maintaining an article I spent months getting to featured. The fact is, from a reading of the sources given in the article, as given in the article, I had good faith to move to Breanna Manning. I think the bigger problem is the conduct of the Misplaced Pages community with regard to transgender people. If you look at Talk:Tom Gabel, you'll see the same kind of arguments being used when talking about a trans woman who in no uncertain terms came out.

Look, I don't make any secrets about the fact I'm LGBT. I'm in the category for LGBT Wikipedians. And one of the first things you learn when you are part of a LGBT community is that you don't have the right to define what a person is or isn't. This goes especially for trans people. You don't get to say that an individual isn't gay enough, or isn't trans enough, even if you're gay or trans yourself. A person's identity is defined through themselves and nothing else. Obviously, being Misplaced Pages, we need those reliable sources, but between the Lamo chat logs and the New York source, I was confident that Manning had identified as female.

That isn't to say I'm uncomfortable with how the gender identity became known to the public. I would have appreciated it if Manning said it publicly. I'm aware that Manning is okay with being referred to by the name "Bradley", but a) it's not identification as male, and b) it's not in the article. I appreciate the argument in the Reitman piece, but Reitman is not Manning.

As I said, there is a massive problem on Misplaced Pages with our treatment of transgender people. There seem to be many cisgender editors trying to define the terms of being transgender, which, as I've said, is a massive faux pas. The sort of arguments seen on Talk:Tom Gabel show it's encyclopedia-wide: one editor is arguing (from ignorance rather than spite) that Gabel should be referred to as he as she hasn't started the transition yet, despite a massive Rolling Stone article in which she says that she's a woman. This is a digression of sorts, but it goes back to a central point: I don't get to define anyone's identity other than my own, and neither does anyone else. As I had good faith to believe Manning identified as female, all I did was respect that identification. Sceptre 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem with your edits? Can you describe it in your own words? Are you going to continue doing edits like those? Arcandam (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in consideration of being called a "narcissistic little lying troll he is - and I don't give a fuck whether this gets me blocked" on this noticeboard by the AndyTheGrump as typical of the uncivil and disrespectful behaviour that Sceptre has been subject to, this thread is plainly unhelpful and inflammatory. Reminder - does anyone recall Five pillars includes "respect"? Let's see some more of it, at the moment ANI has a severe lack of it as every time I drop in here, it looks more like a blood sport cheered on by the same old nasty dramah queens. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• As other people have pointed out above, more eloquently than I can, Andy was impolite (he is a bit of a grump, remember) but Spectre's behaviour has been much more damaging to Misplaced Pages. Pointing out the word "respect" in the five pillars does not help your case because Spectre's behaviour is not very respectful. You can call me nasty, you can call me a dramah queen, but please don't say I am old. I am not old. Please "respect" me too. Arcandam (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. On this page you can find evidence that I am not a dramah queen. Please read this page and retract your comment.
  • Sorry, indeed I hope you are lithe, smooth skinned, delightfully gym bunny toned and spend the weekends working out as a podium dancer. My used of "old" was more in the sense of old tired and jaded, as most of us become who peer into the dark void of this drama board too often. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly Sceptre needs to be banned from the topic of Manning as the views revealed in that area show that no rational behavior is possible (for anyone who hasn't looked: Andy is exploding precisely because Sceptre cannot respond to clear statements that Manning has no publicly expressed gender identity, and because the community will not reign in Sceptre's IDIDNTHEARTHAT circular refrains). The above mention of 5P completely misses the point: we are adults, and respect is not handed out in equal dollops to anyone who can click "edit"—a certain amount of rational and helpful behavior is needed in order to earn respect. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting and semi-automated edits

I would appreciate some assistance here. User:Alan Liefting has started recategorizing animal rights articles without discussion. He is removing articles from one to another, creating a new cat, removing pages from existing cats, and adding others. He's using AWB and Hotcat.

I've asked him to stop and explain (see discussion here), as some of the distinctions he is making make no sense to me. They might make sense if he would explain, but he won't. One red flag is that he said there is a "subtle" difference between animal rights and animal welfare groups. But there is a significant difference between these groups. Therefore, if he continues, there's a chance he will start categorizing groups together inappropriately, and because of the speed of his edits, undoing them would cause a significant amount of work.

Alan says he plans to continue without discussion. I have seen similar complaints about his category work before. Can anything be done about it? SlimVirgin 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've also asked him to stop and explain here. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have two main concerns. First, there is a big difference between animal welfare (AW) and animal rights (AR) advocacy, which Alan indicates he doesn't recognize. The distinction has narrowed over the last 10 years, and will continue to narrow in my opinion, but in the view of some groups and individuals it's still a stark distinction. BLP kicks in because people don't like to be labelled incorrectly -- I've had several emails from AW people over the years asking to be removed from an AR category or template.

Secondly, the AR movement consists of established organizations (e.g. the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), as well as amorphous groupings set up for one specific campaign (e.g. SHAC), and then leaderless resistance movements (e.g. the Animal Liberation Front), which are not "groups" in any meaningful sense. To avoid confusion, I created an Animal rights movement category, so that editors not familiar with the differences don't have to worry about them. Alan wants to split this category into "organizations" on the one hand, and something else (he won't say what) on the other.

I'm not totally resistant to change, but I'd like to make sure that whoever carries it out knows something about the movement, so they can spot the pitfalls, and that requires discussion before making the changes. SlimVirgin 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please credit me with at least a little intelligence in being able to distinguish between an organisation and something else. You will note that I am only moving the organisations to the category that I created. And I said nothing about creating any other category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You categorized Safe Humane Chicago as an AR group though there's no indication that they are, and their use of the word "humane" suggests they're an animal welfare group. You categorized the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as an AR group, which they're not; they have AR sympathies, but several of the senior members don't see themselves as AR, and AR is not their primary focus. Then there are the rallying cries sometimes used by one section of the AR movement – such as Oxford Arson Squad and Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade. These aren't organizations in any meaningful sense, but you've moved them into that cat. Those are just a few examples of the problems. SlimVirgin 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

• Safe Humane Chicago - animal rights org according to infobox
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - they promote animal rights but not via activism. What the leaders of the group say is not relevant. What are they looking from the outside in an neutral, unbiased manner?
• Oxford Arson Squad defined as an organisation in the article
• Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade - self described as leaderless resistance but is quite clearly an organisation

You appear to want to have a narrowly defined definition of what should be called an animal rights organisation and to me it seems overly narrow. I sorry to make accusations SlimVirgin but this does smack of WP:OWNERSHIP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to make editorial decisions according to what infoboxes or unsourced additions to articles say, or to impose your own idea of what an AR group is, or what a leaderless resistance is. For example, the word "humane" in a title almost always signals animal welfare, not rights. I have yet to see an exception to that; if this group is such an exception, we would need a source.

Making mass changes without being familiar with the background, and failing to stop when someone who is familiar with it points out problems, just makes no sense. It's not a question of OWN, but of not wanting to get things wrong. SlimVirgin 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the mass changes you talk about the edits I did to avoid a template redirect, and setting the collapsible option, and then setting most of the article to the collapsed option because the template was too big? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You say "It's not a good idea to make editorial decisions according to what infoboxes or unsourced additions". This is clutching at straws. If I cannot carry out the simple task of reassigning a category after reading an article then either the article is at fault, I have made a mistake, or you do not agree. If I you do not agree with four of the edits it is an editorial issue not worthy of an ANI. Like you, I also don't want to get thinks wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I find this all very ridiculous and very frustrating. I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of mu edits to SlimVirgin. I did not say that I plan to continue without discussion. And, I am yet to be told why my edits are contentious. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of my edits to SlimVirgin". I read what you wrote on your talk page, and it was not clear to me. Perhaps you could be more specific? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoeSperrazza and Slim Virgin, I read the talk page and did not see any clear rationale for what you're doing. I have, at this time, no opinion about your actions one way or the other, but that's partly because you really haven't explained yourself adequately and, specifically, you have not answered Slim Virgin's reasonable questions. You should address those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Communication should be better, yes. I understand that it might make sense that there be a category on organizations (and the response to that would be a terse 'why not') but there are questions of scope that need to be hashed out and editors must discuss those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But I did communicate. Am I dealing with a bunch of thicko's or am I not making myself clear? Don't answer that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is above such mere trifles as policy and consensus. This issue arises regularly and his behaviour is an infallibly unperturbed as we might expect from such an Olympian presence. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A mere opinion Andy, and given you grumpy attitude towards me I give it no credence to it. ("Olympian presence"? Huh?) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also of concern is this - tagging an article with 3 sources as 'BLPPROD'. GiantSnowman 11:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of editors make that mistake, as long as he doesn't keep repeating it, then there shouldn't be a problem. More worrying is AfD nominations like this. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)What is wrong with it? he-he.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Editors turning up at the AfD should easily be able to make a judgement on the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)"Ah! But it did not have references! It only had external links." crowed Alan triumphantly. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that such pointy nominations (and proddings) are rather common--I'm not going to give a full list, but see his talk p. and edit history. (in this case I think his point here was that the reason for deletion was so obvious it didn't need to mbe mentioned (lack of third party sources). That he failed to consider merging or redirection is typical. There are two possible solutions: one is dealing with his contempt for reasonable procedure, and the other is altering deletion policy to require the use of WP:BEFORE, both with respect to a reasonable search and explicit consideration of other options. We could figure out how to deal with him specifically, but I think it would be much better to deal with the general problem. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The general problem I think you are referring to is new page creation? Using WP:BEFORE to try and keep the crap out of WP is not going to work. We have been forever tweaking policy to keep crap edits under control BUT IT IS NOT WORKING. It is pathetic that WP is flooded with crap new pages. I want to build WP yet seem to waste a lot of my valuable editing time at new page patrol. The inherent conservative nature of Wikipedians and the bureaucratic behemoth that the project has become (but I am not opposed to some degree of bureaucracy) is not conducive to policy change. So we are stuck with the problem. Maybe that is why I have become POINTy with my edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If its not working then we need to consider why it isn't working and what factors if any are exacerbating it. May I suggest that you look again at that AFD nomination and ask yourself, how clearly did that explain our standards to the creator of that article? The problem with a deletion nomination that would only be obvious to Wikipedians is that to a non-wikipedian it could comes across as unprofessional, or even malicious. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah! Go on you lot! Kick me over a little levity on an AFD and bending the rules (rules? what rules?) on a PROD in order to incrementally up the quality of WP. But ignore my other 10s of 1000s of edits!! I need some wikilove or a barnstar or milk and cookies or a cup or tea. Naarh. Piss off. Just kidding! And that's another thing. All that cloying budding up with new editors who do a crap job is pathetic. We need to encourage good new editors not only old new editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly we ought to encourage good new editors; we also agree about the need to discourage the hopeless; where we apparently disagree is in the possibility, or at least the likelihood, of teaching those who at first are less than satisfactory. I don't want this to become personal between us--we share about 90% of the same goals. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. And you have been very tactful with the 10% on which we disagree. I try not to judge people on initial face value in the real world but in the wikiworld it is real easy to judge if a new editor is worth grooming. I have encourage a few over the years but more often than not I just want to tell them to piss off. I don't think I could be an administrator. I would be listed here every day! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

People have expressed concern about this before on your talk page, e.g. here and here. The key issues are that you make mass changes (ones that you must know might be contentious) without prior discussion, and when asked to stop won't. So I hope you'll agree not to do those things anymore. SlimVirgin 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course there will be disagreements with my edits. I have done quite a lot of them. Sometimes I come across an area that is closely guarded from outsiders, or there has been a fractious past discussion, and I am hounded until I leave. I stumble across them because the categories are way out of line with convention and/or policy (they don't alway match). Also, I respect process most of the time but if process stops me from improving WP I ignore it. There is policy on the somewhere. And which animal rights edits do you want me to revert? I did almost a couple of hundred of them. Calling the result of my edits is a mess is only your opinion at this stage. We have yet to get someone else to corroborate that opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You assume correctly that I will not undo my edits because I think I am right in this case (note - "in this case"). Arrogant I know, but to me the edits are quite clearly an improvement. I want to finish what I started. I don't want it sitting there half finished. Also, how is the "we" that you type about? Is the the royal we? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And as I stated on my take page I did stop when you contacted me. I had to to answer my talk page msgs for one!. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You've created mistakes and inconsistencies because you've labelled some animal welfare articles as animal rights, and now some groups are in "organizations," and some in "movements," and others that are only ephemeral rallying cries are in groups (the latter is like calling "BE BOLD" a Misplaced Pages group).

Alan, this is what I mean. I had to ask you the same thing several times on your talk page, and you kept giving non-answer replies. I've made the same point here about the difference between AR and AW, and groups and rallying cries, more than once already. But still you respond as though I haven't explained. This is the repeated complaint people have of your approach, going back months, namely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This can be annoying when it comes to normal article edits, but it's disruptive when it comes to mass changes that are harder to undo. So that's what really needs to end. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to disagree, but you have to acknowledge and try to accommodate (or at least address) people's objections. SlimVirgin 02:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your point above that you stopped when asked, that's not correct. I asked you to stop at 00:39 7 May, you replied to that post at 00:58 7 May, and at 01:10 7 May, you continued with your changes, then started editing the category pages to reflect those changes. SlimVirgin 02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, as I have already pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_for_using_AWB. I am tiring of this which is why I gave a short-form reply and why I won't bother with the rest of the nit-picking. As my parting shot, unless my editing capabilities are going to being questioned again, and since you are making a serious effort to discredit me, I will say this: it is all about WP:OWNERSHIP isn't it? I did maybe a couple of hundred edits in your patch and you did not like it. All you have managed to do of substance out of all of those is wrongly query a few categorisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a score here umpire? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an "umpire", but I'll try to offer a suggestion. I write this not looking at anything to do with the dispute itself. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Alan, this would normally merely be an issue of "the second mover conundrum". A response to which might be to try to get one or more WP:3PO, to hope for a resolution. (For example, something potentially possible here at WP:AN/I.) However, the way you are acting, and your responses in this thread, would seem to me to be alienating those who might step up and look at the situation, and potentially support your assertions.

I've been there. You feel you know and understand the "way things should be done", and someone else comes along with a different interpretation of how they think things should be done.

Something important for any Wikipedian to learn is the duality of how WP:BOLD actually meshes with WP:CON. And how self assertion of "what is right" only goes so far.

Not everyone fully understands this, and what makes it more challenging for some is that it's constantly evolving on Misplaced Pages.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that at this point, I suggest that if you still feel that your position is correct, and you don't feel that you are going to come to a consensus with SV, then start an RfC of some kind. Express your views and see how the rest of the community feels about it.

But continuing to "shout to the sky" is obviously not getting you anywhere, and is probably not the successful action that you may be hoping it to be.

I hope this helps. - jc37 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Yep. Yep. I consider myself to be BOLD on occasion but I am not reckless. I understand consensus but only seek it if is potentially contentious. I have just come from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Animal rights, SlimVirgins' little fiefdom, and I am not impressed. I was a mess! Granted, how she/he manages the WikiProject is of a lesser concern than the actual content side of WP but it may not bode well for his/her other edits. I am now under the impression that this ANI is a mean of getting me to stay away from animal right related articles. I don't like making these assumptions about other editors motivations but I have been pushed TOO far in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of WP:NOTTHEM and bordering on personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beyond My Ken is making a small but obviousy misplaced change to Reach for the Sky. He reacts to my reversal (including an explanation) with active attempts to prevent a discussion by repeatedly erasing the pertinent section on the talk page. Please make him join the discussion. Thanks. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox just protected the page. Neither of you had any productive effect — the comment does not change anything. It's simply a request not to erase a nearby space. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The nearby space is what the non-discussion is about. There shouldn't be a space.

BTW: Do you think an IP wouldn't have gotten away with the shit Beyond pulled? Not only avoiding the discussion, but actively disrupting it? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Nyytend: User:79.223.4.134 and User:91.10.47.34 (clearly the same editor) are very probably socks of banned user Otto4711. I presented the evidence that got Otto's latest sock account - User:Iridescentlavender - indef blocked, and this seems like some puerile backlash. (Otto's well-known for harrassing those who file SPIs against him -- just look at his behavior toward User:Lihaas.) The IPs are clearly WikiVeterans, not newbies -- they hit the ground running -- but the behavioral evidence is not yet sufficient to compare against Otto's many blocked socks: although editing articles about TV shows is one of his focuses. Filing an SPI would be silly, not only because the evidence is thin, but CUs generally won't connect an IP to a named account (although why not when it comes to long-banned sockmeisters I don't really understand).

In any event, I see no reason to discuss anything with probable socks, especially when they want to discuss a general issue on an article talk page, and especially when they post a demanding comment title and tell me to "Go", as if I was a recalcitrant servant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic, Otto's plan went like this: 1. Remove a comment from an article. 2. Hope that you will be around to re-add it. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

I'm nobody's sock, my provider switches IPs from time to time. You should not violate AGF quite this blatantly. (I'm also not a newbie, but never claimed I was.)

I started running when it was obivous that you don't want to discuss the matter, and even deleted the discussion for others. Imagine that would have happened to you: What would your reaction be? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you sound very much like Iridescentlavender when he was protesting his innocence. As for AGF, well, I have a pretty good nose for socks, and a good track record when I report them -- not perfect, by any means, but good enough that I've learned I can trust my instincts. When that happens and my SockSense is buzzing, my ability to AGF is quite limited. As a colleague of Carl Sagan once remarked, having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.

What "Otto's plan" was, I haven't the foggiest idea. I find it almost impossible to understand the motivations of a person who will come back to edit Misplaced Pages time and time again after it's been made quite clear that his inability to edit collegially makes him unwanted here, and who returns with the full knowledge that he will erventually be found out and shut down. A reasonable and mature person would find another outlet for their energies - but that does not describe Otto4711. I really can't grok him at all -- but fortunately I don't have to understand his behavior in order to recognize it.

Regarding the demanding comments on the article talk page: article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Misplaced Pages-related discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Misplaced Pages-related discussions". This is a very reasonable statement, and seems well grounded in policy. Perhaps the IP user can open a discussion on a policy page to discuss article consistency in formatting, and this section of ANI and the talk section could be closed? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out which policy page that would be. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given WP:COMMENT, I think a new section on WT:MOS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware ofWP:COMMENT, and since it supports my position, I see no reason to open up a discussion there. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it supports your position (which is that no comment should be included), as it states "They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors. Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode.". That's why a discussion may be warranted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (my emphasis) --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See my response to this point on the article's talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What, a new one, I thought I was Otto?

Anyway, put up or shut up. Next time you accuse me of socking without evidence, I'm reporting you for making personal attacks.

The discussion is about the article. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a discussion about the article would be a content dispute, which would be inappropirate for AN/I, which deals with behavioral problems -- presumably why you brought me here. The thing is, when you file an AN/I report, the behavior of all parties becomes the scope of the discussion, including you, the filing party (or "OP"). This is why my thoughts about your probable sockiness are appropriate. It's quite often the case that an AN/I filing will bounce back and bite the OP; we even have a page about it: see WP:BOOMARANG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So I could legitimately accuse you of threatening me with a lawyer, with no evidence whatsoever? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in the page with or without the comment line. Why is the IP edit-warring over something so monumentally trivial? And how does he get away with calling it "vandalism" when it clearly is no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AGF much? Why don't you ask the same question about Beyond My Ken?

It's vandalism because he was damaging the article, without even an edit comment. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

His change is invisible to the reader, therefore it does not damage the article. And your insistence otherwise demonstrates bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it.

The main isssue (and the reason this was blown out of proportion) is his disruptive "discussion" style and his personal attacks against me. That's why we are here. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I really think it got "blown out of proportion" because you chose to come here with it, in the attempt to force me to discuss something in an inapproriate forum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I came here. You left me no choice by actively preventing any discussion about it. What else was I supposed to do?

What do you think would have happened if you picked up the discussion on /Talk, only to point out that the forum was wrong? Maybe even pointing out the right place? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ECx3) Call it a personal policy: just as the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists, I don't do discussions with socks, once I'm sure enough that they're socks -- this current discussion being a rare exception. (BTW, Bugs, the IP's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me.) Incidentally, I was EC'd in trying to say that the discussion was clearly going to continue to chase its tail, so I don't plan to participate further. Any editor -- apart from the OP -- who wants more input from me, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll dip my toe in again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. "BTW, Bugs, Beyond's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me." Now what? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That little blurb is not visible unless you go into edit mode specificaly looking for it. It makes no difference in the way the article displays in "read mode". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A small spacing difference in read mode has been reported, which is the point being made by the IP. However, I believe the difference is not materiel, and thus not worthy of dispute. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article??? BTW, I liberally add those spacings to articles. Makes the page look nicer. Just remembered that there is some sort of footer template enclusure template. Might try and get a top spacing put on that. I am not holding my breath. Hard enough to do the the dab template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I want back the 15 minutes that I wasted reading this. I ECed with Errant, who basically said the same thing I was trying to close it with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'd feel better if you blocked the IP, as he's now continuing his ridiculous edit war on this incredibly minor matter, in other articles. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to stir shit up, but the change was supposed to have a visible difference: This diff shows the effect he was intending. The two extra newlines got stripped out, which BMK evidently didn't notice, and so the two versions that were being edit-warred over were functionally the same. The fact that he neither of the editors even looked to see if their reversions were even affecting (much less improving) the article is really the final, capping lunacy to this whole thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP-hopper is deliberately reverting BMK now, in other articles, further demonstrating bad faith. I'm guessing he hasn't been blocked yet simply because the admins are enjoying the ping-pong match. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting Beyond's reverts of my edits which are implementing WP:MOS. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I chucked the IP a 24hr block for continuing to edit war over trivialities (on another article). At least I think I did... some parts of the interface say he is blocked, but it threw up a wierd error when I blocked him, and it is not showing in the logs :S --Errant 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have worked, just is not logged :S Anyway - we immediately have an unblock request. Someone else can handle it from here, I need my bed :) --Errant 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Handled. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion about BMK's behavior

It was pointed out to me that closing the chapter on the disruptive IP also shut down conversation regarding BMK's conduct. That was not my intent. I am opening this subthread (as the closer) to facilitate the requested discussion on BMK without rendering any opinion on the matter. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent to this re-opening, it appears that BMK understands that his behavior could use improvement, based upon the acceptance of the awarded Oncorhynchus. I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I must say that this issue arose because a probable sock deliberately chose something that would rile him up. With that I entirely empathize with him as someone who socks have targeted for years. When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK. Socks are unwanted. The sock was going to find any issue to engage him on.

That said above, I doubt this "I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed". The addition of his < ! spacing > hidden comments and other style issues, and edit warring to keep them, has been going on for his entire wiki career over three accounts. His previous accounts have a block log for it. He has his own peculiar style that he puts on articles that goes against the project approved MOS, and he justifies edit warring with WP:IAR. He's been asked, and refuses, to discuss his style differences with editors on the MOS talk pages. The MOS must take into account more than just typical desktop usage, and as pointed out to him, some of those style differences he implements are actually destructive to users not using a desktop browser. He continues to ignore that his style doesn't benefit the project and creates a bad experience for some readers.

This issue was raised, and asked for justification by others besides the IP sock. It shouldn't just be ignored because of the obvious issue of being provoked by a sock. This is a cooperative project and his attitude when confronted on non-standard style is... pompous. This does need correction. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

RfC/U, maybe? Unless this is garnering support for some sort of necessary preventative block, to protect the project from harm, of course. Doc talk 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in. I agree that in theory RFC/U is the right approach here if only to get a record of this somewhere less ephemeral than ANI or in some old talk archive (under a different user name in some cases). The difficulty is convincing someone to waste an entire afternoon of his life writing said RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me clarify something: You said " When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK" That is very bad advice. Many a time have I seen someone reporting socks get blocked because of their behavior during the Checkuser process. If you think someone is a sock, got to SPI, report it, avoid them. 3RR against a sock will still get you blocked for edit warring if their edits are not clearly vandalism or major BLP violations. And there always exists the chance that you are wrong, in which case, you have acted in bad faith and edit warred against a non-sock, likely biting a new user. A claim of "sock" doesn't exempt you from the guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the above. I agree with all of it.

I believe it was me who requested the reopening of the thread because I was not able to comment before the thread was closed. I asked User:Toddst1 here for advice to proceed and I thank him for reopening the thread.

Basically, what happened I believe on Reach for the Sky was that User:Beyond My Ken inserted whitespace here, was removed here by User:91.10.47.34, was readded by User:Beyond My Ken here and removed again here by User:Bzuk. On the talk page of the article in question, there is consensus that white space is unnecessary, and aforementioned undos of the article indicate the nonstandard of User:Beyond My Ken's formatting.

User:Beyond My Ken continues to add white space to the articles. Obviously this is against consensus because User:Beyond My Ken has been told not to do this and because he is the only person who does this; In this same thread I explained the guideline where it whitespace should not be used and suggested if he wanted to change the guideline that he can propose to do so at its talk page. I hoped he stopped adding whitespace but it is obvious he is oppositional and does not and uses WP:IAR to continue the formatting. And it seems this is the only guideline that he does not want to follow. The rationale behind NOT using his "white space formatting" is that it is excessive.

Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.".

Regarding RFC/U, I can file it, but I would appreciate some help and pointers as it will be my RFC/U and I am not sure the work that is involved.Curb Chain (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, the SPI was closed by the clerk as " The three accounts appear Unrelated at this point. There are similarities, yes, but no smoking gun. ", with no comment as the content dispute. The observations of a single editor regarding a dispute in content in the middle of an SPI isn't something I normally consider as demonstrating a consensus, so not really relevant here. This edit by Ken seems to indicate that he gets the point, and this was after his last edit on the page. Granted, the page is fully protected now, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt since he has admitted some error. At this stage while the article is fully protected, there is still nothing for us to do at ANI, however, and I am not inclined to unprotect it. What I DO suggest, is that everyone, especially Ken, go to the talk page of the article and make the consensus clear. And do so in a neutral, fair and polite manner. It could start as simple as "I think $x because of $y". This is missing, and is always the first step in dispute resolution. Until that happens, I see no point in taking any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also added a friendly reminder on his talk page, which should suffice and get the point across. If not, then he has no one but himself to blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring is one thing, stupidly lame edit warring is another, but stupidly lame edit warring where you're not even using the right revision to revert to? C'mon now."

He was correct, my actions were distictly sub-optimal, which is why I accepted the trout. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any other issue, which I have no plans to discuss here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to go ahead with your white space editing?Curb Chain (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given his complete dismissal of the complaints against him based on the rationale that every editor who has complained is part of a tiny minority of malcontents, and that he recently edited the MoS with a seemingly-innocuous "clarification" to the introduction of whitespace of articles with the purpose of allowing him to lawyer away because his introduction of whitespace is not "inadvertent", I'd say that's a given. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BMK's changes make no visible difference in the articles. There's no reason to do it, and there's also no reason to remove it. It looks the same either way. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Someone gave me a better example. It's still not worth edit-warring over. If it's detrimental to iPhone users, or whatever, then it should be stopped.

Besides which, a single white space works just as well. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary white space. I don't think so. In the example of mobile phone users, it can be a lot of useless scrolling and a lot of useless space that doesn't help the reader. Adding an extra line is not helpful, so unless there is a functional reason to have it in, I don't think this is necessary.Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, a single white space doesn't cause "a lot of useless space". No need to to get drawn out over something so minor. Moreover, a lot of his edits REDUCED the amount of space currently wasted. Let it go. Buffs (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User Emerson7 and "I didn't hear that"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editors at WP:SHIPs have been dealing with an ongoing problem with Emerson7 (talk · contribs). The editor continually moves references within the ship infobox to the |notes= section of the infobox despite being repeatedly asked not to. There have been four conversations about this matter; some of them are here, here and here. Yet Emerson7 continually ignores this consensus; does not engage in discussion; wholesale reverts any reverts made and reverts warnings made to his/her talk page. As of May 6th the moving of references continues. The edits are not easily reverted because they're usually part of and overall edit that contains productive editing. Brad (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Looking through the last 1000 of his edits, I don't see that he has used the talk page ever except to put up a template. Looking at the last 500 edits on his talk page, which takes us back to late 2008, there have only been a couple of times he has bothered to reply. He isn't one to talk to people. What I can tell from his edits, most are good wikignome type edits, and he seems quite good at it. Of course, if there is a reason he shouldn't be making the edits and he won't talk, that is a problem. You might try a personal message on his talk page, which is usually a better starting place than ANI. I don't see any evidence that he has ever intentionally done anything disruptive, excepting one block in 2007 for, ahem, "persistent disruption & refusal to repond to requests and warnings". Still, in the spirit of good faith, do you feel comfortable politely putting a personal note on his talk page first, explaining the concern? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't these earlier "personal notes" on his talk page, removed by the user and thus acknowledged, qualify?  --Lambiam 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes they do, I stand corrected. Now I will try and see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, he has replied to my message on this talk page. Some people are not very communicative by nature, yet are great contributors. In this instance, I don't know whose edits are right or wrong, and like I told him, I just want you two to figure it out. I suggest a slow, patient approach on his talk page, and continuing to exercise patience. I think it is obvious he is one to avoid confrontation, hence the suggestion to take it slow. And you already have been, I'm not complaining at all. I'm just focused on getting the end result and sometimes that means meeting more than half way to engage. He is a good contributor with a long history, after all, you guys just need to figure out this one element. If you need someone to mediate, just ask, but I'm guessing you won't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated. The issue of citations placement has strong consensus by the ships project which has been reinforced each time the edits occur. We've invited Emerson7 to conversation several times and leaving another note after the one he reverted on May 1 seemed to be useless. Brad (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know him personally (and likely no one here does) but I know that some people avoid conversations and confrontation like they are the plague, and he may simply be one of those persons, hence the suggestion to keep it simple and polite. Again, he is a good contributor so I know that if he IS doing anything wrong, it wasn't from not caring, it was from not knowing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What? How could the editor "not know" he was going against a consensus after all of the notifications they received and blanked? If Emerson7's only response was to stop making the edits on the first or second notice this wouldn't be an issue. Despite multiple requests to stop the edits there is no response and the edits continue. This is the reason why I've brought things here. "persistent disruption & refusal to respond to requests and warnings" is exactly the problem. Brad (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't phrase that properly. He deletes a lot of messages and I'm not convinced he reads them at all. He should have known, and should have read, and was dismissing it for whatever reason. Perhaps I'm extending too much faith here but I am admittedly more focused on a peaceful resolution so you both can resume editing, regardless of the blame. What matters is that now he is speaking, and how you move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep alive. Brad (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

... why? Are you asking for further admin intervention? To what end? — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

based on the last time i participated in (or visited) the wikiproject ships page, it was my understanding that the way i have been editing those pages was not contrary to consensus. having stated that, however, i am decidedly remiss for failing to keep up with the current consensus there, and in the spirit of community, i will of course not move references within the ship infobox to the notes section. --emerson7 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review, please

I was going to reset the block of User:Namuslu since they had been socking and screwing around on Istanbul during a block for edit-warring. I was alerted to this behavior by a note on my talk page (see User_talk:Drmies#Namuslu_evading_his_block.3F); the DUCK evidence for one of the IPs in the recent history is good enough for me. Anyway, I was going to restart the two-week block today, and then I saw (and remembered) that they had been re-blocked for exactly the same thing earlier. And so I changed my mind and changed the block to indefinite: this editor has been given the rope to hang himself with, and that he did, in my opinion. Still, jumping to indefinite is a high jump, even for a trigger-happy bastard like me, and I invite your scrutiny. If the community wants to give Namuslu another change and lower the block, I'm fine with it. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support block '-No problems here, he evaded the block and it isnt a first offense.--SKATER 06:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, editor is evidently unwilling to play nice with others. I've never been able to make up my mind if he was a sock of Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fut. Perf., can I have you for my memory? That's from 2007! I don't even remember what I ate for breakfast that year. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, Shuppi has been around, on and off, most of the time in various reincarnations. He's difficult to forget. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Since he said a not so nice thing about his opponent and wasn't asking for an unblock, I've revoked his talk page access. I do love a man that loves his city, though, but maybe Tariq does as well. Someday we'll all have coffee together on the Bosporus, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadine Coyle SemiProtect please?

The 1st edit to Nadine Coyle after semiprotection expired was yet more OCAT vandalism from IP (who is now edit warring over it). I'm using iPhone, so using PP board and warning IP as I normally would is difficult. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have given the IP a level-3 warning for disruptive edits. I don't really want to protect yet. I've also notified the editor.

  On a sidenote, does anyone know why those "disruptive editing" templates don't show up in the Twinkle box with automated warnings? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of AFD notices on Pesoguin

The creator of this page keeps deleting the AFD banner on a page he created. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. If I restore the banner a 3rd time my change will almost certainly be deleted again. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted under A7 --Guerillero | My Talk 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial response on seeing this page crop-up in new-pages-patrol. My Speedy-deletion was rejected. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a bot automatically re-adds the templates anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with copy/paste move please

Someone has asked me to fix up a copy/paste move of StooShe to Stooshe, but the target has since been significantly edited and a history merge will be needed - and I don't know how to do that. Can someone who does please fix it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I shy away from the complicated ones, but this was relatively simple. Complete article history is now at Stooshe, and StooShe is a redirect. I checked it twice, but let me know if I screwed something up. There are still 5 deleted edits at StooShe, but those edits were deleted well before the current page was created, so they don't need to be moved, as they are not part of the history of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

IP editor 98.211.240.43

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

98.211.240.43 (talk · contribs) has been editing the Gary Player to state he has won nine Senior Major Championships rather than six. These edits can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The number of Senior majors Gary Player has been the subject of a talk page discussion. Please note the discussion was moved from Tewapack (talk · contribs) to the Gary Player talk page by editor Tewapack. Editor Tewapack who like myself does many agrees with me on the total amount of Senior major wins for Player. Let me explain. The Senior British Open aka SBO began in the late 1980's but wasn't recognized as a major championship till 2003. The sources to verify this can be found here, here, and here. Gary Player won the SBO three times prior to it being recognized as a major championship.

This IP editor and GKLipsco (talk · contribs) have been changing Gary Player's article to include his SBO wins as major championship ones but at the same time never changing any other article on a player who won the SBO prior to 2003. I warned the IP editor at the talk page, but he disregarded it so I brought the matter here. The other editor has been informed also but hasn't made any recent edits.

Please note the misguided edits are due to this where Gary Player claims the SBO as a major championship. Unfortunately neither the European Senior Tour or the Champions Tour recognize the SBO as a major when Player won it.

What I'm suggesting is a warning be issued to the IP editor....William 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fine, warn the IP then. You can do that. Come back if the problem persists, we can semiprotect the article or block the IP, but I suspect that dialogue will work if you can get their attention. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• No discussion had with the user at the time, no warnings given to user at the time. Take it upon yourself to speak to the editor, they are a person, just like you. MrLittleIrish © 10:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of process deletion and creation protection by User:JzG

I knew this was going to have to come here. I knew full well when I asked for the articles to be reinstated, he was going to refuse. But, hey, had to take the chance. And now we're here.

User:JzG has deleted two articles, L'CHAIM Vodka and Shemspeed, under CSD G11. He also then creation protected the articles so that no one could recreate them, which is entirely out of process, as there was no creation spamming or the threat to do so. Furthermore, both L'CHAIM and Shemspeed are clearly notable topics and both of the articles prior to deletion had such secondary sources in them. L'CHAIM could definitely have used some writing fixing, but it's about a product, which is difficult to get sounding perfectly neutral. But it was no way so non-neutral that it should have been deleted under G11 and Shemspeed didn't sound POV at all, it was a fine article.

I ask that this noticeboard please review this out of process deletion and creation protection (salting) of these two articles and I request that both articles be reinstated. Silverseren 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review....after you show me where you then followed the correct process by going to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you allowed to do a REFUND on an article purposefully deleted by an admin and creation protected? I didn't think of DRV though. But that wouldn't be the proper place to discuss the improper actions taken here. Silverseren 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that needed if G11 is misapplied? G11 specifically states An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. The deletion comment Advertorial written by self-admitted paid editor seems to be the reason. But does that make it a G11? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as an "improper action" needing immediate action by an admin. Take it to DRV and if consensus is to overturn the deletion, an admin can unsalt the articles then. Before that decision is made, it's a bit premature to take other actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:

You don't think it's improper for an admin to delete and salt two articles because they dislike that the creator is a paid editor? Silverseren 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The deleting admin felt they were spam. Normally, that's what we do to spam. The issue is whether or not the rest of the community agrees it was spam. That's what DRV is for. If it's found they were not spam, then it becomes actionable. Until then, it's a bit premature to jump to ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood, i've started the DRVs. Silverseren 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to read this or this for a fuller understanding of this issue. Note also that L'CHAIM vodka co-sponsored a festival mounted by Shemspeed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The connections between the two have nothing to do with their notability or the state of the article prior to deletion. Silverseren 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRV is down the hall, third door on the right. Determining whether a speedy deletion is out of process is squarely within DRV's jurisdiction. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

DRVs started. Silverseren 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Related issue

For reasons which aren't clear to me, the three images that were used on L'CHAIM vodka have not been deleted with the article. They have been marked as CC-by-SA, but appear to be non-free content. There is an OTRS ticket, but OTRS volunteers tend to be very gullible non-critical when it comes to claims of ownership. One of these images (File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg) was copied over to Commons (commons:File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg). although I believe that non-free content is no allowed on Commons. Taking the image which is obviously an ad, an editor has cropped it down to File:Matisyahu in shades.jpg and it is now being used in Matisyahu. Convoluted enough for you? Can someone take a close look at these images and decide which license is appropriate and if they should be on Commons or not? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the OTRS ticket, and I am dramatically unconvinced that the person who sent the email has any authority to give permissions related to this image. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't follow. Since he's a paid editor, the images he got would have been directly from his clients, so the permissions should be fine. Silverseren 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that the client (and the models, and the advertising agent, and the photographer, etc.) are all in on making their logo and advert available under GFDL and CC? --SB_Johnny | ✌ 23:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Who sent the OTRS ticket then? And, yes, I would expect Bernie44 to do so, since he's properly followed all of the other article making rules, via neutrality and referencing. Silverseren 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Being paid to create an article and being permitted to alter the copyright on an image are entirely separate issues. This is actually one of the most common problems with tickets sent to the permissions queue: a random employee of a company has absolutely zero legal control over that company's intellectual property unless such control is officially granted by the actual copyright owner. Many OTRS volunteers don't know this, and even fewer paid editors do. As for who sent the email, I do not wish to say due to the OTRS privacy policy. But I can say that I do not believe the person who sent it has the authority. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(after e/c) I'll second what Someguy said, since he said it better than I was going to say it. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44 might not have known that actually or thought that someone with the ability to release it had done so, since he probably just asked his client (more specifically, the person in the client's company that was working with him) to go about getting the permissions released for the image and Bernie44 just gave them the directions to do so. I'm sure with some clarification though, Bernie44 will be able to get the proper permissions. Actually, i'm going to go notify him about this discussion, since it actually involved him directly now. I should have notified him about the DRVs anyways, I forgot about that, oops. Silverseren 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If he does come here, there is something else he should know about the permissions. We need an actual contact from the copyright owner directly, ideally from an email address we can be confident is the copyright-holder. An attached digital letter that could have theoretically been written by anyone doesn't cut it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bernie44 here. Permission to upload the L'Chaim images was given to me by L'Chaim's owner, not a "random employee" of the company. I was under the impression that the image's owner had the authority to place it into the creative commons. I wasn't aware it was necessary for the image's owner to send the email granting permission to do so, but now I know. I didn't intend to violate any of the rules regarding the creative commons. If an email from L'Chaim's owner is the next step in the process, please let me know. Thank you. --Bernie44 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the next step. I'd like you to know that I never thought you were breaking the rules, rather that you didn't know them. We have these rules in place because people actually do show up handing us copyright content, claiming to have the authority, and even pretending to be the owner of a company! Ideally, you can have L'Chaim's owner see Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was brought to the OTRS Noticeboard before it was transferred to Commons. Permissions should probably be verified for the newspaper covers that Bernie44 uploaded to Commons as well. Gobōnobo 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44, I would be surprised if the company wants to change the license on these. If the intention is to use them in an article about L'CHAIM vodka, then I believe all that is needed is for them to be properly identified as non-free media. One is probably enough, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I agree that one image is enough. I will look into identifying the images as non-free media, and using just one on the page. Someguy1221, thank you for your response. So I'll either identify the images as non-free media or have the owner send an email as you suggest. Gobōnobo , I already went through a long process/discussion after the first newspaper image I uploaded in February 2011. I located the discussions - they are here (if you scroll down to Jewish Star) and here. I don't feel this warrants further discussion, but let me know if you think it does. --Bernie44 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat in IP edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

91.228.1.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

See diff. Language suggests it is a joke, words suggest a block is appropriate. QU 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP is registered as "Anonymous Proxy". The legal threat is nonsense as "we" would not work through such a proxy, or make threats. A long term block on the proxy might be worthwhile. --Fæ (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 IP blocked for 6 months, as a confirmed anonymising proxy. AGK 22:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alessandra Napolitano

• Alessandra Napolitano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have completed a review of the contributions and technical data of Alessandra Napolitano (AN). Based on that review, AN looks to be yet another incarnation of the banned User:John254. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. Given that AN has been editing for a few months, and so that I am not delivering a checkuser block from lofty heights, I thought it appropriate to give the community this courtesy notification.

I gave consideration to not blocking the account because AN put up a 'retired' notice a few days ago, but decided to proceed due to the abundance of evidence and the fact that John254 is a serial socker and banned user. AGK 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

AJona1992's restrictions