Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive791

• Pnranjith is still using his talk page to make personal attacks on Sitush and Qwyrxian - I suggest his block should be upped to indefinite and his ability to edit the page revoked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• And in the last 24 hours the relatively new contributor Amal89 has been attacking and making threats, resulting in me issuing a warning. This seems clearly to be co-ordinated off-wiki, as was suspected when the issues were raised last year. I am now becoming a bit irritated by it all, despite my earlier note here that these things originate in frustration with our policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me Sitush, I have read what amal89 said in Ezhava talk page, i didnt see anything wrong with his comments. Whatever he said there is based on genuine and valid sources not sourced from novels or short stories. If you block people one by one then i would say this wikipedia site has been taken over by some people and no senior admins doing anything do stop that. I have noticed that you have banned docrun (I dont know it is correct username but you have mentioned in ezhava talk page) that means you will take action to those contributors who are expressing their opinion against you even though they are right.

Some people here mis using the general sanctions. Just blocking contributors by using this general sanctions . Helpless here. frustrated too Irajeevwiki (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• reading over his talkpage, I no longer believe Pnranjit is able to or willing to have any discussion not based on the idea that paid editors and admins are out to get him. I request him to be topic banned, and frankly see no other outcome than an indefinite block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to mention the same legal threat and personal attack. Please note that Amal89 was already notified of

WP:NLT (see these edits by myself and Martin Hoekstra). Amal's "defense" of "This is not a legal threat, but you should know that you will be prosecuted under the following sections of the IPC" is BS. The only way these types of articles is if we shut down the aggression, attacks, and bad faith editing ASAP. I'm a little to blame here, in that every time I show up at a new caste article as an admin, I invariably get drawn into the content dispute, and thus become unable to act administratively. Qwyrxian (talk

) 07:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, wrt Pnranjith, I tried to selectively delete his comments on his talk page that contained a link to an attack website against one of the editors here (leaving all of the rest of the vitriol), but for some reason the link's still appearing in the history. Can anyone else figure out how to get it out of there? Note that I don't think that removal of such a blatantly offensive link violates

WP:INVOLVED, but if it does, fine, desysop me; it's not worth that link appearing for even one minute more. Qwyrxian (talk

) 08:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

These two need to be indeffed without talk page access - and I don't think anyone would be considered in breach of

WP:INVOLVED to do so, not when we're dealing with blatant legal threats and blatant personal attacks (and clearly coordinated at that). This has to be stopped, and there is no way ArbCom is going to desysop anyone who stops it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 09:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: Qwyrxian, what you need to do is rev delete every intermediate revision from and including the revision in which the material was inserted, up to and including the last revision before it was removed. Currently there are three intermediate revisions, one by Sitush and two by me, which still contain the material - those also need to be rev deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I've got the diffs straightened out. As I said, all I deleted was the link to the off-wiki site making really unpleasant accusations against Sitush; I kept in all of his comments otherwise. If he starts up again, I may have to remove talk page access myself, but would rather someone else does it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If nobody else does it first, I'll be removing his talk page access tomorrow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And also, that off-wiki blog is so pathetic it's laughable - it says a lot about the intelligence of anyone who tries to push it as being true, if they think there's any chance it's going to be believed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out someone's mistake is not a personal attack. Pointing out how legally incorrect this article is also not a threat. How can attribute the religious views of one caste to another one and say that it doesn't hurt them. Hurting the religious sentiments is bound by law. Every country has laws regarding this. Pointing it out is not a threat. Knowingly misguiding people, by writing articles based on lies and when genuine evidence is shown, trying to insult the people who are legally responsible for making those genuine sources and when someone says its not right thing morally and legally, saying that you are outside the jurisdiction of India as is evident from "I can assure you that the chances of India taking legal action against me or Wikipedia are as near to zero as makes no difference due to issues of jurisdiction..." is not correct either. I think If you people don't want others to give correct information, don't write pages on Wikipedia and spoil it. That's why you have blogs. Wikipedia is not for expressing your personal views. I gave those IPC's only so that you can go through it and make this article perfect. I had already assured Martijn the other day no legal action will be taken I was merely pointing it out to you as this article is clearly violating some laws, mostly the ones related to religious sentiments and knowingly giving wrong information. It's a mere guidance. I have no time to go behind this legal wild goose chase. Amal89 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Accusing people of "knowingly giving wrong information" constitutes a

reliable sources and not from what people claim is true without any independent evidence - and people are unlikely to waste their time explaining it to you again. So, work within Wikipedia's policies or get blocked - there is no third option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Threatening people who brings genuine sources as evidence with 'block' also constitutes personal attack and spoils the 'Wiki' in Wikipedia. I think I should leave a warning on your page. If you don't want to change the article be bold and say it here that no matter what we wont change it. Stop making threats! You block me or don't block me makes no difference to me. If a person makes a mistake I'll point it out and I don't care about this so called block. Amal89 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've explained the difference between identifying mistakes and alleging dishonesty on your talk page - please be very careful to distinguish between them should you wish to make future claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: As for changing the article, please re-read what you have already been told several times about reliable sourcing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. How about when someone shows a government document that clearly shows the two castes are considered different by the Government? And on wikipedia an editor still uses the word 'official' to claim that the two castes are same. This is evident from this "The Ezhava and Thiyya communities are officially treated as one...." Doesn't this make a deliberate dishonesty? And that is why I said from now on keeping this article as it is will constitute knowingly giving wrong information. I don't know who wrote it in the first place. The article itself is the culprit. And of course I understood about the reliable sources. Next time when I see a news article on some local evening newspaper or in some fiction novel or a story in some book aimed for children teaching them about religion, or about a case filed by some organisation that never existed, sure, I'll definitely bring it here as reliable source. Amal89 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, as of 90 minutes ago you were still engaging in conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia contributor, as per your note here. These wild accusations really do have to stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this before you shout around saying there is a legal threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overlook_legal_threats You have no idea what the article is about. Associating the revered deity Sri Muthappan of thiyya caste to the ezhavas is same as writing an article saying that Prophet Muhammed is the prophet of Christians. It's baseless and a lie and also an insult. You somehow don't get the message. Let me write it for you from Wikipedia itself.

Don't be a DOLT – stop and think. Always check basic facts before making assumptions Never unblank biographies without asking why the IP might be blanking it. Remember, you could be personally responsible for re-publishing libellous content.[2][3] Not good. When a legal threat is made, step back and ask "why?" Maybe there's an obvious reason, and you could help the victim rather than increase their woes. How would you feel if it were you? Don't let policies like no vandalism and no legal threats lead to your editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life by your thoughtless action. Wikipedia has real life consequences; Wikipedia is not a video game. If you aren't sure what to do with a legal threat, email the WMF's legal department at legalwikimedia.org where specially authorized users and staff can assess the situation. Amal89 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. pointing out you will be blocked is not a "threat" or a

here to improve the encyclopedia. Take a deep breath, step back, and re-read what has been said to you, considering that they might have a point, and that you might possibly be mistaken, and consider the advice you've been given, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

17:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave proof, verifiable ones. Not some legend from a fairy tale. But documents from Government of India itself. And they are in denial for some strange reason. This kind of behavior really do shed light on something vile, and yes I am doubtful of the credibility of Wikipedia when such pages are allowed to be made, and also when someone brings in a new verifiable evidence, they are either threatened to be blocked. Amal89 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI until they've served their week's block or have had that block lifted. However, they are also referring to a blog where they plan to post "evidence". To avoid this accusation festering for a week and perhaps gaining some traction among existing SPAs and likely-to-surface new ones, would it be possible to nail the issue now, perhaps by someone doing a CU? It could save a lot of hassle, especially if the blog does exist and has a Tiyya readership. I don't mind someone running a checkuser on me, although I can't speak for Qwyrxian, of course. Ahem. - Sitush (talk

) 21:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved here, so I just want to clarify something.

primary sources

are discouraged.

As to your comment that associating that deity with that group is "an insult" has no bearing on Wikipedia. You stated earlier: "Hurting the religious sentiments is bound by law. Every country has laws regarding this." That's actually incorrect. The United States does not have laws about hurting religious sentiments, and Wikipedia is based in the USA. While it may be impolite to insult a religious belief it is not illegal. Laws in other nations do not apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

I try to be understanding, and I appreciate the carefully considered words of other uninvolved users here, but personally, I'm sick of telling Amal (and before him, Prjanath, and a few others on the page) the same, simple things over and over again. Government documents are

original research to interpret the actual distinction between the castes. But what Amal and others seem to be refusing to hear is that even if we could discover the Indian government's definitive position, we still would not make our article conform to that. We would certianly include their opinion, but we have numerous highly reliable academic sources that state that the two groups are the same. So, at best, we would include both claims; we would never just take one government's position as "truth". Of course, we cannot do that until we actually get a source that clearly states what they claim to be the truth. If Amal and others don't want to understand/follow our policies, then, ultimately, they need to find another website to be involved with. Qwyrxian (talk

) 22:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We do understand the Wikipedia policies related to primary sources. All we are saying is the secondary sources you say are good are not trustworthy, as we have enough proof but as primary sources. That is why I never asked to include or make specific changes. Until a reliable secondary source that also agrees with the primary sources are obtained, this article is not going to be of use to anyone. All it leads to is more arguments and accusations. I don't personally know the other users who criticize this article. I came here as a reader, saw that the article is incorrect and decided to signup with wikipedia only to report this issue. Amal89 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is another proof but from Wikipedia itself. This is an article about the deity itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muthappan , no where is it mentioned that the deity is worshipped by ezhavas as claimed by the controversial article. Even the word ezhava is not mentioned in this article. This is as of the time at which this is written. The following line from the controversial article clearly states that " The main deities of Ezhavas include Vayanattu Kulavan, Kativannur Viran, Pumarutan and Muttappan." which clearly contradicts the article about Muthappan. Inspite of all these proofs, the editors of the controversial article are unwilling to make changes, which naturally forces us to accuse them of having vested interests. Their claim about the reliability of the secondary sources is itself questionable. The contents of the article on Muthappan was not altered at the time of this writing. That page was last modified on 14 March 2013 and had no references to ezhava whatsoever, the article had also said that "The puja rituals and rites for Muthappan are performed by the Thiyya community." which clearly implies the controversial article is wrong. Amal89 (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Arghhh. Amal, you still just don't get it. We don't say "Okay, no primary sources in the article, but primary sources automatically win when deciding what secondary sources are okay." Here's the simple, easy rule: look at the primary source. Is there some fact from it that you can quote and understand with absolutely no knowledge of the field? If the answer is no, or "sometimes" or "maybe", then the source has no value for us. Period. The primary sources provided are between somewhat and extremely ambiguous. "Proof" is reliable secondary sources (and, sometimes, tertiary sources). Primary sources cannot, basically by definition, prove secondary sources wrong. And Wikipedia (along with all other texts that can be freely edited) is never a reliable source. Please. Go find a reliable secondary source. Until you do, just please do us a favor and leave. Seriously, you're not helping here in any way, shape, or form. And at the same time that you're wasting our time here, you're insulting editors on the talk page and claiming we're part of some secret conspiracy to preserve apartheid (for others watching, see [5]). Right now, without checking, I couldn't even tell you which of these two "groups" is the light-skinned and which is the dark-skinned; I'm only vaguely aware of even what part of India this is in. I have absolutely no real world stake in this, other than ensuring that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are followed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course I don't get it. I mean from a normal human's perspective. On one hand I have the following documents Driving License, Passport, Voters Id, Life Certificate, Death certificate, School certificate, Insurance papers, Tax papers, Bank papers and pretty much all documents that clearly shows the two groups are totally different. And then I got the observable things like skin color, eye color, culture; thiyya for obvious reasons can easily be said middle east ethnicity(the same as that of an egyptian) and then we have the ezhavas dark skinned, of aborginal ethnicity(like people from srilanka and also australian aborginals). Then on my other hand I have an article in Wikipedia that says the two groups are same (evidence secondary sources). How in the world could that make sense? One of these is clearly lying( either all the day to day use documents plus our eyesight or this article). You be the judge! This article in the newspaper 'The Hindu' clearly explains this http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/03/stories/2004090310670500.htm . The hindu is a very reputed newspaper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu Amal89 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Amal89 is "T. Damu" a scholarly source? Former journalist and writer and vice-president of Taj Group of Hotels? Has he submitted a peer reviewed thesis? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, I have no idea whether T.Damu is a scholarly source or not. I couldn't find any details as to the specific study as mentioned in that article. But the krygistan origin was proved by others using DNA test and related studies. Especially the works of Cardiologist Dr. Shyamalan. This is an article from the Times of India about this http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/kochi/30662805_1_origin-dna-testing-kyrgyzstan Amal89 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Amal89 I'll give you a simple example, there is a polytechnic in my town, it used to be called Khopoli polytechnic, now it is called B. L. Patil Polytechnic, however the source cited, is an older one which mentions the name as Khopoli polytechnic, the name change isn't covered in reliable sources, so Wikipedia continues to call it Khopoli polytechnic, I know the name has changed, how ever I may as well be a dog. The principle that Wikipedia works on is verifiability and not truth.[6] Also to my knowledge this forum AN/I isn't for content disputes, for that there are other places. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Close?

Warnings have been given, personal attacks appear to have subsided, Yogesh is trying to help with some good advice on user pages, and there seems to be some positive discussion happening at Talk:Ezhava. So how about we close this here, and take the content discussion back to article talk pages where it is supposed to be, with the proviso that any further personal attacks (which includes allegations of deliberate dishonesty) will be met with blocks? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Id like to ask any uninvolved admin looking to close this first to look over the contributions of everyone active on talk:ezhava, and check if any further warnings or other actions are warranted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would request the closing admin to take

wp:BITE into consideration, I can understand the frustration of editors who have been trying to beat certain articles into some sense (I don't say that I am happy with the result), but they are trying to make them comply to Wikipedia standards, and they are hurt when there are new editors who being unhappy with the contents, and with poor understanding of Wikipedia policies, war with the existing editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk

) 04:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that point. But there is a big difference between reacting with simple frustration and making scurrilous personal accusations against honourable editors (like accusing editors of being paid large amounts of money to defame certain castes - supported by that ridiculous blog). Had I been an admin at the time, one contributor to this discussion would have been instantly blocked for that attack - and they will be blocked if they repeat it again (they have already repeated it once). I hope the closing admin will bear this in mind too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia want to grow or shrink? How have anyone's first hundred edits been? Anonymity on Wikipedia makes a person brazen, (one thing I've never hidden behind). If the accusation is rubbish, it ought to be treated like excreta that one may come in contact accidently while cleaning a toilet. Why create an issue? If something like that is thrown at me, I'd carry it like a medal on my user page, I think I carried the fact that I was called a Dravidian troll by Metapedia, but then I thought that boastful and discontinued doing so, I won't link it here, anyone interested needs just to use a few search strings to do so. My point is that these fellows are making mistakes that any newcomer makes, I don't condone them, yet please don't throw the baby with the bath water. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Zebedee regarding "But there is a big difference between reacting with simple frustration...": I said I can understand the frustration of those trying to make caste articles Wikipedia compliant and who are confronted with the deluge of IPs and newcomers who with relative poor understanding of Wikipedia policies edit war. I request the established editors to be a little patient. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We have been pretty patient. Someone above even namechecks me on that score. A part of the problem here is that they are clearly SPAs: it would be easier for them and for the more experienced contributors if they diversified (and I realise that you have made that point on someone's talk page - thanks for that). - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The vast majority of newcomers do not make the mistake of resorting to such personal attack at the first sign of disagreement. The editor in question made a personal attack, was warned about making personal attacks and had it redacted, then repeated exactly the same personal attack. That is simply not acceptable. But if the attacks have genuinely ceased (and I hope they have - your words to the newcomers will hopefully help, thank you), then there's no action needed now. But repeats will not be tolerated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Did "little patient" sound like I'm accusing someone not being patient, well I didn't mean that, I request every one concerned to give new comers a longer rope. ( Indian English idiom used) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A man said to the doctor, "Doctor, I think I'm shrinking!" The doctor replied, "You'll just have to be a little patient." (sorry for that, but I couldn't resist) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Yogesh, it did not sound like you are accusing one person and I did not mean to sound as if I took it that way, no worries. It is perfectly acceptable English English, US English, Canadian English, Australian English etc. I'd guess it might confuse, say, someone who speaks only Swahili or Vulcan. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The last time I used "give the long rope" it was confused with "give enough rope"[7] not what I meant then and not what I mean now. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I get someone else to a look at 76.31.239.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.196.234.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It looks like 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They all geolocate to the same town. I'd rather walk away from this situation for now in any administrative capacity. Feel free to undo anything I've done there. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1 doesn't know what he is talking about I live off of 59 and 610 in an apartment complex nowhere near Pearland. And I'm not the person he is talking about anyways. Dude has serious issues and needs to take a chill pill from the look of his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.1 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• They're obviously the same person, so I blocked 98. for about the same period as 76. and with no talk page access to match.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that someone claiming to be this IP hounded us in -en-help (to the point they were kickbanned), and tried everything under the sun to get unblocked. I'd support a really long block if it wasn't dynamic, but they claim that it was just so coincidental that someone made the same edits as them within 30 minutes of an IP getting blocked, etc. Support block, basically. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are Comcast addresses. You can block them for much longer (like 6+ months). Elockid ^(Talk) 22:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

For some information on the history of this saga, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive. Not saying it's his sock, but it may be meatpuppet related. Seems the LICD forums are gone forever. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that wouldn't have collateral damage, if he could IP hop in 30 minutes, who's to say his old IP isn't already someone else? gwickwire^talk_editing 23:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The addresses are not like most other ISPs where resetting the router means that they have a new IP (I would say with great confidence that the IP hop is due to changing locations/using a different network. Again, I say with great confidence that if there was a new person, it would be a friend, family member, etc.). See

Sticky dynamic IP address. Elockid ^(Talk

) 23:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Anyone want to extend blocks? gwickwire^talk_editing 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I support a block extension of 98.196.234.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Because he came into -en-help today under the username DavidP and stated "f#$% it. you showed me why I should never actually improve wikipedia so from now on I f#$% it up" TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had already applied a special block to Drmies for incivility while this was being closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why, Moni3 called PumpkinSky an idiot, a dingus, and blocked him, and nothing was ever done to her. Guess it is who you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't block anyone for the simple offense of calling someone an "idiot", regardless of who it is. I did let Drmies know that it isn't an acceptable term, even if with a little humor. This is no different than I would do with anyone else, taking a singular event and simply saying "Don't do that". If I were favoring him, I would have said nothing, or defended the action. It was inappropriate. Not blockable, but inappropriate nonetheless. I can't speak to what someone else did or would do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, dealing with difficult editors is sometimes exasperating, and sometimes too exasperating. I seem to invite such cases; I suppose you don't. It's probably best to say "Editor x's edits are idiotic" rather than say "Editor x is an idiot", but you'll have to admin that the difference can sometimes be just semantic and not a matter of civility. With your user name you could have been accused as well of this ridiculous charge, and I hate charges of Zionism and whatnot that are so obviously idiotic. "Guess it is who you know" is a throwaway accusation and I'm disappointed to hear that from you: I can't think of a single admin/editor who'd be blocked for the same thing--and you know as many good people as I know, probably more. Also, I didn't block IronKnuckle; in fact, I unblocked him a while ago as an act of good faith. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied to on Drmies's talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note read: thank you Wehwalt. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone's edits "idiotic" is at least as insulting as calling the user an "idiot". Also, an editor who thinks Schmidt is a "Jewish" name may not be an idiot, but certainly is right much ignorant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there an episode of

Eight is Enough with a similar theme? She assumes that a guy with a name like Meyer or Schmidt was Jewish, and makes him Jewish-style food, turns out he's got a German name and is entirely goyische.--Wehwalt (talk

) 15:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not many people realize that "Ken" is a Jewish surname, truncated at Ellis Island. "My" is a family name, and as for "Beyond" - well, back in the day my parents were hardcore Beatniks, man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• In a pretty straightforward case of
  "his work" on WP. I'm just going to boldly remove the stuff from the AFD but if someone could deal with the IP... Stalwart111
  14:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

  He's IP hopping using dynamic addresses by the look of it, so I don't see much benefit in blocking. I've semi-protected the article instead, to stop further removal of the AfD tag. I guess we could do the same at the AfD if he continues, though I'd rather leave that to someone else as I'm not sure of the appropriateness of protecting an AfD discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it done in cases of meat puppetry, so I think it would be fine if the disruption keeps occurring. Non-autoconfirmed editors could just be directed to post on the talk page perhaps?

talk

) 15:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable - let's see what he does next. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And he's continued arguing in the AfD, so I've blocked the latest IP and semi-protected the discussion page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks, appreciate it. Admin corps was on fire last night. Stalwart111 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In spite of opposition in the talkpage RfC, the article being subject to

Yes, i don't know why on earth I used the word 'comic' - it isnt in the least comic - stupid. as for edit warring that is 6 of one, half a dozen of the other - i have reverted it twice in 72 hours or something - is that not allowed. A 'soi-disant 'wikipedian who no longer gives a shit' has 'edit-warred' your preferred version back . so what? thats how it goes. there is no consensus. what do you want - to shut up discussion? i cant see the point of this Sayerslle (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

and after the 'wikipedian who no longer gives a shit' put back your version, its been re-inforced by an admirer of yours with this - "Exactly, DIREKTOR! Assad is king! And terrorists and their Western mentors need to fight in a long, bloody struggle if they want to change that! Much bloodier and longer than up to now. You said: When the UN changes its position, or the rebels take over the vast majority of Syria, then we might have something to discuss. Hopefully, neither of that will ever happen!" - is this the sort of disinterested editing you like. fRankly I'm not at all surprised to see you let this kind of remark pass without the slightest demur. Sayerslle (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's all calm down. I have removed a rant from Sundostund (talk · contribs) and a subsequent rant from an IP editor. Sayerslle, I think you should refrain from painting Direktor in Sundostund's corner ("an admirer of yours"): guilt by association only leads to diatribes. Besides, your representation of the discussion was incorrect: it wasn't Direktor who made that "hopefully" comment (now removed). Please. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought it was enough for everyone to tell a difference between DIREKTOR's words and mine words if I put his words in italics. If some confusion emerged from that, I apologize. DIREKTOR didn't do anything wrong here. I also apologize if my personal opinion, stated on that talk page, violated
    WP:ARBPIA rules. It wasn't my intention, and it certainly won't repeat. Anyone who follows my work can see that I'm not a vandal, and that I almost never participate in political discussions on talk pages, but this case was an exception. I certainly don't plan to embroil myself in a long-term, futile political discussions here, or anywhere else. I'm a man of action, not words :) --Sundostund (talk
    ) 23:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

On various articles[8][9][10], and I am quite certain this would be incorrect. What action should be taken? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem, are you disputing the facts or is it about style, we have Roman Catholic in place of Christian,[11] what is the problem with Sunni Islam instead of Islam, please clarify? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You think all British Indians who are of the Islamic faith are Sunni? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I get your point? I don't know the statistic, though a source says that there are many Islamic sects in India, Sunni and Shia being two main groups.[^[1]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that "others" is removed; as long as it's clearly giving just the predominant faiths, Sunni is seemingly appropriate for the British Indians, since

Indian Shi'ites are a minority. Same concerns for the Filipinos, while with the Afghans, the only problem I see is that it might leave out people (if any exist) who see themselves as Muslim but neither Sunni nor Shia. Nyttend (talk

) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would use something like "Islam (primarily Sunni)". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that the Philipine example above does admit that there are Protestants there, while also stating that Roman Catholics are the majority. I can see AlanM1's solution. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this acceptable, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.60.232.105&diff=next&oldid=547876154 but I was of the understanding that it wasn't.

I am requesting an admin advises or intervenes, as the user concerned has repeatedly added some rather strongly worded comments. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's been done close to 10 times now as well. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Calling another editor a "traitor to the United States" is a pretty clear personal attack, which deserves a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a "history" with this IP it seems. WP:NLT applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really a legal threat, but plenty of gross BLP violations. The IP needs to be put on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree with this edit: if the editor wants to rant some, on their talk page, let 'em. They shouldn't be messing with other peoples' messages, of course, but Gwickwire, if they want to "comment" outside of some message I don't think you should remove it. I'll tell them not to do so. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• After reading the EWN report I blocked two IPs, which is mostly symbolic since Algenon L. Marbley is now semi-protected, but they might continue their disruption elsewhere (like here). A block for edit-warring is reasonable anyway. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• I don't remember removing any comment they made outside of my messages, but if I did it must've been one of those caught-in-the-crossfire things, so sorry. Regardless, we may need a longer block/talkpage revocation later, he's still at his "freedom of speech" thing. By the way, the legal threat I saw was accusing people (and Wikipedia) of violating the first amendment right to free speech. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was rolling back their latest rant but you had already responded to it. Talk page privilege is revoked. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• User talk:2livefree. User claims he's going to continue socking and that he isn't dropping his whole schtick. Someone wanna push the big shiny button? gwickwire^talk_editing 23:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've indeffed 2livefree (talk · contribs). He has made his intentions pretty clear IMO. Chamal ^T•C 03:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hey uhhh... Is anyone else worried about the tone he's taking? And I mean in a greater context than "worried he might keep on disrupting the project". Do anything in my power... didn't die in vain... acts of treason. Someone feel like maybe we should give the
  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
  09:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you think it's a credible threat, there are appropriate off-wiki channels. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not sure, which is why I was opening it up to discussion here. I'm always willing to file a report with [email protected] when I see a clear threat (I've done so twice, in both cases in situations where the threat was far from credible, but was blatant enough I felt it warranted reporting), but in this case the question is whether we should be inferring a threat from this guy, or not. — 
  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
  22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)