Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive795

• Evolutionary psychology (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Evolutionary Psychology of Culture (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution and Culture
• Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jhicks0207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture

There is something very odd going on here with a huge amount of (spammed?) content beong added to this article by two brand new users. One of these new users has created the second drivel article. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci Just trying to update the old page with new information and formatting. The old article was insufficient. While the new one can definitely be further organized, I was just trying to make a new page with further information on evolutionary psychology and culture. I cannot speak for Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Is this some undergraduate project gone badly wrong? That's what appears to be happening. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire work is verifiable, and I believe it is much better than the alternative lack of information on wikipedia.

• Both new editors are out of control. They are both adding large amounts of gobbledegook content. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• One new page is not large amounts, please add specific problems with the new page. jhicks0207 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All the content you are adding constitutes an

WP:ESSAY, like the deleted article with its bizarre capitalization. Wikipedia is not a blog. It looks as if Jhicks0207 and Masterofthepages (who presumably created the deleted essay-article Evolution and Culture) are the same person. Mathsci (talk

) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The cache on Google tells me that Evolutionary Psychology of Culture is an identical copy of the recently deleted article Evolution and Culture. Jhicks0207/Masterofthepages is abusing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I came into this imbroglio in the middle. I've deleted the article created by Jhicks (per
  WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense), which, frankly, was a nonsense tagging. I removed the tag, read the talk page comments, which were also pretty silly. I finally traced it back to the article that had just been incubated per a deletion discussion. That article had been created by User:Psyc452-lrockwell, whoever that is. I assume there's a relationship between Jhicks, Masterofthepages, and Psyc452, but it's possible that they're just all fellow students, not a single individual. They do need to stop recreating the article.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be students, but it's hard to say. If so, they should not be let loose on articles like
    WP:UNDUE way to top level articles such as Europe. Mathsci (talk
    ) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps somebody should give advice to Jhicks directly now that he is trying to recreate the content for a third time in the article incubator. Wikipedia is not the place for pseudoscientific "essays" of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like another undergraduate project that has got out of control, cf User:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality. It's Psychology 452 at San Francisco State University as far as I can tell. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Matsci, it is an educational project which unfortunately seems lacking in guidance. Please see Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology_.2F_Psyc452. I'm dropping a line on User talk:Psyc452-GGeorge--they're one of the students and seem like a nice person. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly this could involve User:Memills, a long term editor of Evolutionary psychology. An account User:Psyc452-mmills created Evolution and culture. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Memills now blocked for a week for shenanigans in another field of interest. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I've been working on the article in the incubator, where hopefully I can get extensive help from the wikipedia community in order to make it presentable for wikipedia. I see your pointsMathsci, and I agree with Bbb23 that the problem was in how you tagged the content because I certainly see the flaws in the article itself. jhicks0207 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhicks0207 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, this work is part of a greater project to increase available information about evolutionary psychology which myself, User:Psyc452-lrockwell, and jhicks0207 are all involved in. We by no means wished to abuse wikipedia by adding our Evolution and culture page, and are working to have it meet wikipedia's standards. Thank you Mathsci for realizing our mistake, we sincerely appreciate your feedback and are only trying to contribute to wikipedia's greater mission to empower and engage people from around the world, to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. As the information on evolutionary psychology currently on the web is limited and inaccurate, including the current wikipedia page, we are trying to help correct and build upon it. We are not spammers or vandals, we are academics well educated and researched on the field. I am currently having all of our group members, as well as extending this to others working on our same project, the online seminar wikipedia provides for new editors. Incase other students are reading this, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Training/For_students Thank you all for your contributions, myself and my team members will work all weekend to bring the page up to wikipedias standards. If there are any further issues please contact me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-cwlodarczyk (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions for Memills?

The usernames mentioned above, Psyc452-cwodarczyk and Psyc452-lrockwell, confirm that this editing to articles related to Evolutionary psychology was coordinated off-wiki by Memills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no doubt that those involved were editing in good faith as part of an educational project. It would appear that they have been misled about the purpose of wikipedia by Memills. He is currently blocked for one week for disruption on Men's rights movement. Adding content on a controversial subject in an uncritical and unbalanced way in the voice of wikipedia is unacceptable. There have been three unsuccessful but repeated attempts to add the same problematic essay-like content: Evolution and culture, Evolution and Culture and Evolutionary Psychology of Culture, and a fourth version of the content is being edited in the incubator. Given his past problematic editing and history of blocks, it would appear that something like a community ban for Memills might now be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the issue but have interacted with Memills elsewhere. I thought it's worth noting that he has a second legit alt account User:Psyc-mmills (separate from User:Psyc452-mmills which is listed above). At this point these accounts are not linked but should be. Also a number of articles were created by this account and have since been deleted. User:Psyc-mmills was also warned by Yunshui in Feb 2013 regarding this issue--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Super strong support for sanctions on Memills & Co. He's incorrigible, and hundreds of discussion threads over many years have failed to get through to him. Memills only cares about Memills. He has no interest in Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

The initial comment in the above section: "What is the basis for the accusation that Memills deliberately misled and coordinated the others? The only evidence I see is that he has an alternate account with a similar username. Maybe he's participating in the same project as the other editors. Akuri (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)" is not off topic and should not be hatted. (The rest of the conversion pretty much is). NE Ent 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section above it is disclosed that Memills edited the project subpage of Psyc-mmills. That second account is a legitimate but undeclared alternative account of Memills. On their talk page they state that they are the professor responsible for this wikipedia educational project. It's a trivial matter to check what's going on off-wiki, but because of

WP:ARBR&I. Akuri is currently editing through open proxies. He has not sought or received permission from the arbitration committee. Instead he has accused Timotheus Canens of "wheel-warring." The diffs I gave above concerning the topic of the thread (an educational project) speak for themselves and are unambiguous. Thanks, Mathsci (talk

) 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Akuri has not helped here, nor his advocate-apologist NE Ent. Memills has now confirmed that he used these alternative accounts. However, he has not addressed the problem of why he did not declare his main account when questioned on the talk page of the alternative account. As the main editor of Evolutionary psychology and its talk page, that is unhelpful. The problem is that the article is on a controversial topic and not really the place to let students loose. Memills has also not addressed the creation-deletion cycle for the fork articles. With Akuri's intervention, Memills has now made a personal attack on me, while following NE Ent's advice to post an unblock request. There he stated,[3] "These edits were made under the auspices of the APA Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, Mathsci is, IMHO, a malicious editor, and does not respect or appreciate Wikipedia's mission, or its policy on good faith edits." But Memills has already been told in great detail by administrators what the multiple problems have been with the way his class project has proceeded. Here is what Yunshui wrote:[4] "From the notices you've been given above and the pages that have been deleted, it is clear that you are not sufficiently conversant with Wikipedia's content guidelines and editing policies to be running a class here. If you want to use Wikipedia editing as an educational tool - and believe me, we want you to do that - then please sign up to the Wikipedia Education Progam, get a course page set up and work with one or more of our Online Ambassadors to create a suitable course for your students. If you continue creating inappropriate content, then we will - with some regret - be obliged to block your account from editing. There are ways of using Wikipedia for the purposes you intend, but if you continue to insist on disregarding them, you will not be permitted to continue editing here." So the problem is two-fold. As the principal editor of Evolutionary psychology, Memills is using his students to "help" him, effectively as proxies, with his favourite article on wikipedia; there has been little openness or transparency. Memills himself started the cycle of create-delete for new fork articles; his students, editing in good faith, have followed that pattern. That certainly must have marred their experience of wikipedia. Memills should have taken the advice of Yunshui and others concerning how to run an educational project. What positive benefit can there have been to his students from this experience on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for anything in the past, but as one of the students I can discuss this project. I believe this whole educational assigmnent and Memills' behavior concerning it can be characterized by one word: Ambition. The whole project was Ambitious because Memills was indeed advised that creating articles in a controversial field was challenging; many editors chimed in by saying that content editing and improving current articles were better alternatives for new users. However, through a firm belief in one of the pillars of Wikipedia, Memills forged ahead with the project, one that would allow students to dive right in to Wikipedia. Of course, this was a trial by fire and we ran into many difficulties. Yet all these difficulties could be managed through talk pages, discussion on the articles for deletion page, and eventually the Educational Noticeboard. I do apologize for any confusion or editor inconvenience that was caused by our project, especially at the onset, as I admit clear lines of communication would have smoothed over many of these difficulties.

However, the only blatant and repeated infraction of Wikipedia policy was the continued creation of the "Evolution and Culture" page, which I stress was not endorsed by Memills. It was the result of confused, well-meaning students who were concerned about their performance in the course. Memills did inform us that the articles could be mercilessly edited and/or deleted and that it was our responsibility to work with the editors to make progress. If it falls to Memills to take responsibility for one group's repeated rule infractions, then I also ask you to also consider groups that DID cooperate with editors as a sign of good faith for Memills and his proactive attempts to inform students of their responsibilities.

In the context of this project, the claims that Memills is incorrigible and using students as proxies to further his agenda are baseless. Sure, Memills is passionate about the topic, stubbornly so sometimes, yet I never felt like a pawn carrying out some grand scheme. I felt like I was part of a drafting and editing process. When my group's article was accused (rightfully so) of being a content fork, it forced me to think critically on how to improve the article, on whether to merge it with another etc. It's unfortunate that so many articles ended up being essaylike and uncritical. I assure you, that was not the intention. There was no intentional 'misleading'. Quite the contrary, Memills provided us with links to wikipedia's policies and even quizzed our understanding with a small test of wikipedia knowledge.

There's no doubt that using the Educational Assignment Guidelines would have been much easier on everyone involved in this project. However, the resulting trouble seems to just be a misunderstanding. With his ambitious project, Memills seemed to overestimate the student's commitment to quality articles and understanding wikipedia; this created the current dilemma for wikipedia editors. On the other hand, most wikipedia editors seem convinced that Memills is hellbent on raising trouble for wikipedia through his students by disregarding policies meant to help them. I'm personally convinced that this project was well-meant but not properly executed. The things we should take from this is that students MUST know what is inappropiate (repeatedly creating deleted articles) and that this message should be reinforced by both the instructor and editors, preferably working together with clear communication.Psyc452-GGeorge (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But your own deleted-re-created article has just been deleted at an AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions I'm sorry, no matter how passionate Memills might be at your educational institution, that does not excuse the fact that he has been consciously ignoring wikipedia rules, despite warnings. On the talk page of the alternative account the following articles were listed as having been deleted:

• Evolutionary Psychology of Ethics and Morality
• Evolutionary Psychology of Kinship and Family
• Evolutionary Psychology of Consciousness
• Evolutionary psychology of emotion and motivation
• Evolutionary psychology of abnormal behavior
• Evolutionary psychology of sex differences

Two articles mentioned on his talk page survived,

Evolutionary Psychology of Language (also recreated [5]): whether they would survive AfD's is another thing. Evolutionary psychology of language seems to be a content fork of Evolutionary psychology#Language. I do not know how many other articles were deleted and possibly recreated. Anyway Memills knows that this is a controversial topic, so choosing it as the topic of an educational project was not a good idea. Here is another deleted-re-created essay:Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (including logged out edits [6]). These problems surfaced already in February, when Yunshui warned Memills (as Psyc-mmills). After two and a half months it has finally registered that making incremental changes to existing non-controversial articles is a better way to proceed. The constant deletion/re-creation of fork articles and the more recent "major updating" of evolutionary psychology was unhelpful, no matter how well intentioned. There's also Evolutionary psychology of parenting and Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating (with logged off edits [7][8]

).

• Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Family and kin, recreation of deleted article Evolutionary Psychology of Kinship and Family)
• Evolutionary psychology of language (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Language) (deleted in February [9])
• Evolutionary psychology of parenting (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Parenting)
• Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Mating; listed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating, already deleted in February as Evolutionary psychology of sex differences)

Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

APS Wikipedia initiative

For background here, there are a number of groups editing Wikipedia articles as part of an initiative sponsored by the Association for Psychological Science (APS). See http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative for more information. I'm not sure the group here is part of that, but probably it is. Some of the groups are working under the auspices of the Education project and are well organized, others are sort of hacking around. However it is worth emphasizing that nearly all of these people are acting in a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the following content from

The 2005 census reported that the “nonethnic population,” consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry, including almost all of the urban business and political elite), constituted 86 percent of the national population. The 86 percent figure is subdivided into 49 percent mestizo and 37 percent white.

— Colombia: A Country Study, Colombia: A Country Study; pp. 86-87

Besides other study of self-recognize gives a 37% of white population in the country http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/coesion_etnia.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodosbs (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the population is analyzed in terms of 86% is divided into 49% mestizo and 37% white, which makes an allusion to the general census conducted in 2005 in the country conducted by DANE, clearly an allusion to a census and a study of 2010 is more relevant than the above references, the user

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

End copied text

I've left a note at AN3 mentioning that I'm moving it here, and I'll notify all parties. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to try and avoid as much of the content dispute as I can here, but obviously I cannot fully avoid this. I'm going to primarily talk about the

Msoamu is constantly warring to remove what he views as non-neutral views, regardless of the consensuses at the talk page, and has often referred to MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs), whom has been diligently working to try and get a neutral article, with inflammatory comments and edit summaries, predominantly centering around what Msoamu believes MezzoMezzo's religious stance is, or accusations of bias aimed at MezzoMezzo. Examples of this include:

• [14] - "wahabi views are written in various wahabi pages.It is Barelwi article,rv wahabi invalid undue criticism"
• [15] - "Now there is consensus,In Terrorism heading at least.also i have demanded RS for blatant MezzoMezzo's POV"
• [16] - "There are relation headings/barelvis practices must be about their practices only.NOT POV of Wahabis"
• [17] - "Terrorism heading is 100% relevant and important.MezzoMezzo you have added here minute details of events to show it in bad light and now opposing highly relevant heading"

It must be noted that Msoamu and MezzoMezzo have been involved, on and off, in this dispute since 2007, as can be viewed here.

Am Not New is a different kettle of fish, but no less of a problem. The user's name claims that they are not a new user, yet they have also made the statement that they are - I cannot remember where that was, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. This user seems to be disruptive across a lot of articles, but again, I'm sticking primarily to the Barelvi dispute, which is where I have witnessed the dodgy edits. Examples of POV-pushing include:

• [18] - "Many people say many things about barelvi.it dosent mean to add everything here.it is barelvi article" - ignoring the fact that a consensus had been established on the talk page to include this information. It also made that paragraph far more biased to the Barelvi sect, and generally less informative. Upon being reverted, they then re-removed a (slightly smaller) amount of content, this time without any edit summary: [19]. That removal was also reverted by another editor, whom I haven't seen edit the article before (which is generally a sign that ANN's edit was bad)

"a consensus had been established on the talk page" where is consensus on talk page regarding this passage? mr lukeno the consensus was made on history topic see.you,MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and Msoamu (talk · contribs) were fighting on history topic.the passage which i edited was totally different.i was particulary editing beliefs.which was my main subject as i improved it before.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• [20] - removed as
  WP:OR by User:Qwyrxian. It had previously been added,[21]
  and removed by MezzoMezzo.
• [22] - an edit that was quite promotional of the added person. The excessive info was removed, then re-added [23], then removed again (by me, this time), readded once more [24], and removed by me again.

Obviously, there's a lot more than just this, and it's spread over quite a few articles, but I digress. I have two proposals for each user:

• Proposal 1: Both editors are topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 1 year. Any violations of this topic ban would result in a resetting of the ban to its original length, and potentially a block. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).
• Proposal 2: Msoamu is blocked for 3 months, then topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 9 months. Am Not New, due to their lack of positive edits generally (in my experience), should get a 6 month block, and then a 6-month topic ban. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).

Since some of these disputes date back all the way to 2007, it's high time this ended. Due to Msoamu's long history in this area, I'm more than happy to see a lengthier topic ban, if that's what consensus states (including an indef topic ban). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose i think the proposal is abit harsh and seeing that i have offered to meditate afew days ago..i say we give these editors a second chance before topic bans Baboon43 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• With respect, and let's leave ANN out of this, how is this proposal harsh on Msoamu? If anything, it's lenient - as this sort of thing has been going on since 2007. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

why didnt you wait till he was unblocked to pursue this case? at this moment he cant defend himself obviously & im sure you have seen my pledge to help calm things down over there. Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message on his talk page, specifically stating that I, or another editor, would bring any of his comments here. As for your pledge, it's very good, but remember that, several months ago, I made an identical pledge, got things sorted for a bit, only for it to kick off even more. Forgive me, but I can't see anything short of a topic ban sorting this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As that user already said that i am not related to this discussion and i didnt made any such edits for which i should be block.these last two edits related to tahir ul qdri is not related to this dispute.as concerned with edit of grave worshipping i had seen it irrelevent so i removed.but let me tell you two other names which are part of this dispute.which are engaged in edit war since years.these are Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) both of these are main personalities behind this warr.and an important part of this disputes.especially

• seriously these users too should also be blocked.

Proposal: 3 years block of all religious articles for MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and 1 year for Lukeno94 (talk · contribs)

• i want you to look at my edits.i dont deserve that.
• please get comments from Msoamu (talk · contribs)Dil e Muslim talk 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've not hidden the fact I've been marginal at times. MezzoMezzo has actually not edit warred very much at all, in recent times: it's mostly other users restoring his edits. Your proposal is pretty damn
  POINTy to say the least. In fact, MezzoMezzo has only reverted you a couple of times, IIRC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am talking on this dispute and edit warr running from years.Sir admin.MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) Msoamu (talk · contribs) are three users are fighting from years on this article and similar type of articles(as they accepted it).where msamu tried to show his prospective(barelvi) there these two were trying hard to show thier(non barelvi) side.i am talking about years.look at thier talk page archives.here you will find many warnings and fights.dear respected admin if you block only masamo i will be unjust,you should also ban these twoo users.to cool this topic it is necessary to block both parties.thanks Dil e Muslim talk 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who's been trying to adjudicate this mess, a little bit, and who blocked Msoamu for edit warring...Am Not New's explanation is simply wrong. MezzoMezzo and Lukeno94 have been inserting neutral, well-sourced info. Msoamu has edit warred, made arguments based entirely on his personal opinions, and regularly introduced "sources" that don't even come close to

WP:RS

.

Regarding sanctions, I do have to agree with Am Not New, however, that this is the wrong time to ask for sanctions on Msoamu. I know that if I were blocked for a week, I would probably walk away from Wikipedia and not even look at my page until my block was up. There's no reason to believe that he is aware of this conversation and thus able to offer a defense. As for Am Not New, I'll need to review the exact extent of his edits before commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should've waited a week, but Am Not New's continued dodgy edits meant that I put both up at the same time. If you like, I can withdraw the Msoamu part until they return from their block. Am Not New's statements about me edit warring for years are blatantly incorrect - I only started editing this article a couple of months ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Am Not New, care to explain what's going on here? [25] - information inserted (which I left there initially, for a more religiously-experienced editor to analyse), it was then removed by GorgeCustersSabre, readded by an IP with an incomprehensible reason,[26] removed by me, then re-added again by this IP here.[27] Did you forget to log in again, Am Not New? Because it's pretty blatantly obvious this is you, and I don't want to have to file an SPI unless it is necessary, for
  WP:AGF reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI already filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

well i realy think it is you coz there is a complaint against me and you are trying to blame me by making different type of dramas by some ips.i didnt made any edit even.Dil e Muslim talk 05:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think banning Am Not New (talk · contribs) will be a bit harsh. Although he has been involved in some edit wars and been engaged in conflicts with me, he seems to have seized his edit warring. I think that an Administrator giving him a strict warning will be more appropriate. I think that assuming his good faith is the best option as I think that he can make important contributions. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Am Not New, an IP makes the same edit as you 3 or 4 times in a row, and you expect it not to look suspicious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As i already said may be it is your ip.as you are trying to prove me problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Holy shit. IP's most recent edit summary: "all that editors are wahabi or either sockpuppets.my demand is again same." I'd like to see evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and I'd also love to know how I'm a Wahabi when I'm not a Muslim... Can someone block this IP, because this is just pathetic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have blocked the IP, but chose to semi-protect the article for a week instead. The article doesn't really have a history of useful IP edits, and this editor seems to only be going after this page...but I don't mind at all if someone wants to switch this to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And dear user lukeno90 in your edit you are using abusive words like "kettle of fish" "dodgy" for me.this is a straight personal attack.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry? Kettle of fish and dodgy are personal attacks? Really? If you think kettle of fish[28] is a personal attack, then I'm not sure that your English is good enough for you to edit on the enwiki, and you should go to your native wiki, for
  WP:COMPETENCE reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Luke here...neither of those are even remotely personal attacks in any context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Luke, I will buy you an Amazon gift card if you stop using asterisks for your comments and start using colons. It's a personal preference thing obviously which is why I'm offering a bribe. Laugh out loud. Anyway, damn man...I left Wikipedia for three days so I could spend time with my family and...well, what happened? The sock puppet investigation is very necessary and I will post more diffs there shortly but that's neither here nor there - if there is sockpuppetry involved, it would be a separate thing and the behavior here is a separate thing.
Msoamu's block will be finished by tomorrow and I think this discussion needs to continue. I can bring diffs, but I think Qwezrxian as the supervising admin - yes, I'm putting you on the spot unfortunately - can either confirm the following as true or deny: Msoamu has, at multiple times, blatantly edit warred against consensus. Hell, it's why he was blocked most recently. He received a final warning along with myself (I volunteered to submit myself to such a warning, FYI) which Qwerxian can also attest to. Qwerxian, as the supervising admin, I would also like to put you on the spot to confirm or deny: Msoamu hurls personal attacks frequently and has not ceased doing so over the years.
Alright, that's the factual stuff. Now, from objective to subjective: Msoamu isn't here to help Wikipedia. He's here to push a certain POV. That's one. He is rude when people disagree with him. That's two. He will edit war even against consensus to support that POV. That's three. I am willing to go through every single edit he's made since 2007 to prove that he has never, ever added constructively to Barelvi or related articles, I mean that. That's four. He's been warned enough. He deserves a topic ban. Let him comment on talk pages if he can be civil, but there is no reason to allow him to edit because he has not ever edited constructively to improve the encyclopedia, and we now have reason to believe that he will not ever do so.
Regarding Am Not New, then I need to go to the bathroom and do some stuff and I will get to that in a minute. But regarding Msoamu, we need to hear his defense and I would like some community input - obviously, wide community support is needed for a topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, regarding Am Not New. In the beginning, he started out like a typical newbie which is totally excusable. A number of editors have tried to work with him in order to explain various site policies, and the process has been difficult. Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabe tried to explain the

Talk:Barelvi, as did I. Lukeno was then forced to revert further instances of POV pushing by Msoamu and original research by Am Not New, at which point TommyFenton also got involved in defending the page. Even the admin Qwezxian has to revert the constant insertions of OR on the part of Am Not New, with more diffs by GorgeCustersSabre and Lukeno than I care to link here. The ever-present Mathew Vanitas also randomly showed up to revert Am Not New's OR pushing, as did Darkness Shines. The previous two never had much involvement or interest in the page as far as I can tell and probably just recognized aggressive, tendentious editing when they saw it. It finally ended with Qwerxian protecting the page again which I'm sure annoys the hell out of him. Qwexzian, Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabre

tried to explain to Am Not New why his edits were wrong on the relevant talk page (more than just the above diffs but I'm tired of sifting through everything) to no avail.

So, yeah. If the SPI turns out positive, that's a different thing. Even if it doesn't, Am Not New's tendentious editing and refusal to accept advice from more experienced editors is a problem and smacks of someone who just doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it. I'm actually leaning toward Lukeno's suggested topic ban simply because I've seen the

Barelvi page and how it's been manipulated by followers of the movement such as Msoamu, Shabiha and others for the past seven years and considering that YaNabi.com (a website for which Shabiha appears to be the owner or an admin - check that article's related discussions) has an army of zealous young Barelvis who speak...well, I won't say passable English but enough to respond, I don't see why we should assume this case is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk

) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since we are looking at a topic ban here in general, Am Not New's OR pushing and tendentious editing on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri can be attested to, and perhaps should be attested to, by User:Justice007. I'm exhausted from sifting through diffs now but suffice to say that the article's history alone is indicitave of a spurt of tendentious editing warring against at least three experienced editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've just seen above that Am Not New has accused me of a deliberate attempt to slander them, via usage of an IP. They've made this accusation twice, possibly three times.[29][30] That's fairly tendentious editing, especially considering that the style of English is nothing like mine, I was logged in at the times the IP was making edits, and the fact it most definitely isn't my IP, which begins with 31. I feel like you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, Am Not New. I'm beginning to wonder if just a standard indef under
  WP:NOTHERE is in order, whether you're a sockpuppet or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• well there is a sockpuppet investigation.i will love to see even its relation with me.btw language can be coppied.Dil e Muslim talk 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, an investigation which was not started by me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So MezzoMezzo everyone is wrong you are right?infact you are a person which always stop people to make constructive edits since years including lukeno.you want to show negitive side of these articles from years.and as accepted by Qwyrxian and Lukeno94 that both(lukeno and mezzomezzo) are the major and important part of this dispute.and always engaged in edit wars with users.you not left any stone unturned to do war(with mosamu and other users) and show your side.apart from mosamu i again request block of these two users MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs). Mr admin this topic will not cool if only mosamu is blocked.you must block his opponts.and will be unjustice with mosamu. As concenred with my edits on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri that was a misunderstanding and is not related to this dispute.Dil e Muslim talk 06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke. Yes Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, everybody is wrong, because apparently you and Msoamu = everybody. Anyway, I said my piece and I would like community feedback regarding the admittedly large paragraphs above. I feel that the information up there is pertinent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No everybody=Shabiha and others for the past seven years.Dil e Muslim talk 07:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. Again you make the completely incorrect statement that I have been disrupting the topic for years: Firstly, I've only ever edited to keep the consensus in place, secondly, I started editing these articles a couple of months ago. If you're going to make accusations like this, at least bother to make them correctly. As to "everybody" agreeing with Msoamu's views, that is patently incorrect. Whilst some users have agreed (Shabiha, yes, and Hassanfarooqi), all neutral outsiders - which I was, when I first came to the dispute, as is Qwyrxian, and several other users - have agreed that MezzoMezzo's edits are neutral, and Msoamu's aren't. Qwyrxian voiced his opinion in this very thread: your failure to pay attention to that shows a
  WP:IDHT attitude. In addition, your edits have often been so poorly written that they would need a substantial rewrite to remain valid - Msoamu also suffers from this fact. MezzoMezzo does NOT constantly add in negative material: they add in neutral material with reliable sources - and I've seen Msoamu remove some positive bits about Barelvi in their reversions of MezzoMezzo, and then add in their own poorly-sourced POV. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• i am(am not new) is not a part of this dispute.as accepted by all these.
• user am not new is not part of these sanctions.(tahir ul qadri sanction are not related to this dispute and that was a misunderstanding even i now provided some authentic sources on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadris talk page that he is a barelvi.)
• user mezzomezzo is a major part of these dispute from years
• user mezzomezzo is envolved in enforcement from 7 years
• user mezzomezzo is engaged in edit war from years
• as related with behaviour of mezzomezzo.mr admin only people associated with it think that he is right.many of users think that he always try to show negitive side on these article barelvi and related articles.his edits are not constructive and often doesnt let anyone to add constructive edits.
• user luken94 is major part of this dispute.
• user lukeno94 is envolved in enforcement wether it is from years or months.
• use lukeno94 work hand to hand with user mezzomezzo wether he is right or wrong.
• user lukeno94 is engaged in edit war from months.

• from all above parts i demand block of these two users on religious articles.
• and claim that i doesnt deserve that block.Dil e Muslim talk 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really getting fed up of you making the same arguments, even when they've been proven to be wrong. I do not go around "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo, in fact, I can remember at least one AfD where I expressly disagreed with him. Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark. You most definitely are part of this debate, and I have no idea why you're claiming you're not. MezzoMezzo hasn't edit warred (I possibly have, to keep the consensus) for quite a while. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• point to be noted "lukeno94 told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark"Dil e Muslim talk 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you're now going to try and manipulate my posts to suggest something else? I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down when Msoamu's POV pushing has really got them riled. Again, if you actually go and look at my talk archives and find the thread, rather than just deliberately quoting me out of context, you'll find that there's nothing untoward. Can we have an admin deal with this
  WP:POINTy behaviour please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

dear luken94,cool! Where i manipulated just copy paste.perhaps you should explain it while writing.why didnnt you explained earlier.Dil e Muslim talk 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because there should've been absolutely no need to. I pointed you to where you'd need to go for evidence that I don't go "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo: instead, you deliberately manipulated my words in a
  WP:POINTy way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr lukeno94 every person which will see your above paragraph will conclude the same as i did.Dil e Muslim talk 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear

talk

) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hence the consideration of a topic ban; we're seeing major issues of

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right before our eyes here, on ANI of all places. Even beyond the fact that Am Not New seems to be an agenda account, the extremely combative nature he's displaying here is enough for some sort of action to be taken, even if community support isn't enough for a topic ban. And it might not be enough; what I've noticed with Msoamu's own ANI discussions in the past is that when someone floods the discussion with enough blatant personal attacks, random accusations and manipulation as Am Not New is doing now, outside observers don't take interest because there's simply too much text to read. For my part, my three comments here, here and here express my own position clearly. Lukeno has been the target of some rather nasty personal attacks by Am Not New right here, in the middle of ANI, so I understand why he has responded though I myself will try to minimize comments from here on; I don't want others to be scared away. MezzoMezzo (talk

) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark" dear admin please read the above passage and decide please. mr luken used the line that they have overstepped the mark.here lukeno included both persons mezzomezzo and mosamu.mr admin do you find any word here in the favour of mezzomezzo which lukeno explained later.Dil e Muslim talk 09:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont try to blame me by some pretty team workDil e Muslim talk 09:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please stop being
  WP:POINTy every time you respond here? Again, you're trying to manipulate my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  09:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

After seeing how this has played out here, and how Am Not New's edits have continued to be problematic since after this report was filed, I have to support some sort of sanctions. There is no question that he either misunderstands Lukeno's comment he's quoted above twice (which indicates a lack of the required English language competence), or he's deliberately and transparently trying to manipulate words to tarnish editors who are doing extremely important work in making our religion articles more NPOV. As George Custer say's above, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter; the bans he is calling for are simply absurd. That type of lashing out is generally a sign of behavior incompatible with collaborative editing. I don't know if another admin is willing to step in here (I'm probably WP:INVOVLED), but it does look like something should be done. I'd even be happy with a clear "final warning" from an uninvolved admin that any further POV pushing or tendentious editing will be met with blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that any discussion involved Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, Msoamu or even Shabiha results in them posting walls of repeated text which kills any interest outside observers might have had. Bbb23 has some experience with this issue but I don't know if contacting them about this would violate

WP:CANVASSING

or not.

Anyway, if something is to be done about Am Not New/Dil e Muslim then what about Msoamu? Am Not New's account is only three weeks old. Msoamu has displayed that same behavior for seven years and after every block and warning before the last one, he was unrepentant. I'm still convinced they're the same person but since the SPI isn't getting anywhere, I suggest that both accounts receive some sort of repercussion. Although Msoamu hasn't edited since his last block, we all know he stalks Wikipedia because he magically appears any time I edit

Talk:Barelvi without commenting yet swooping in to revert out of nowhere. MezzoMezzo (talk

) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu's dormant for now. We can re-open a thread on them if this one is dealt with, and they return. As to CANVASSING, I requested Qwryxian to take a look into this again, since no other admin appears to want much to do with this case - which were pretty much my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Qwezxian is correct about being somewhat involved. All of it is legitimate involvement as Am Not New/Dil e Muslim has been edit warring across half a dozen articles, and Qwerxzian is one of about six or seven editors now trying to clean up the mess, but nonetheless if he isn't comfortable enacting sanctions on his own perhaps we could contact someone else. As it stands right now, I doubt many of the admins are reading this thread any more. Who could blame them, I think I need prescrption glasses after going over this so many times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New/Dil e Muslim is apparently harassing Pass a Method due to Method's reversion of Am Not New's POV pushing/OR on Sunni Islam, plastering his talk page with templates like some noob. Am Not New is now consistently being reverted by at least half a dozen editors plus one admin across more than half a dozen articles as of mid-day April 30th. Some of his comments are even bordering on trolling at this point. Please, if another admin does take the time to look at the end of this discussion, please take the time to check a bit more. This is ridiculous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My edits are under discussion even now.Mr admin they are trying to prove me problmatic by making such long paragraphs against me.i didnt even broke any rule for which they are complaining.even many admin are seeing me they should block me if my edits are so problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I mention your long paragraphs and you accuse me of the same. Great tactic. Anyway, you've been reverted by half a dozen editors for violations of policies ranging from

WP:IRS, including by the admin Qerxian, who only hasn't blocked you because reverting you across multiple articles means he is involved and he would prefer another admin does it...per his words above. And I know you read all this, so please don't play dumb. MezzoMezzo (talk

) 03:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr admin my appolojy that was previous edits in which i was not aware of wp:or policy because i was a new user.i had given some evidences that he is barelvi.that was proved OR.even these is a discusion established on the talk page of Muhammad Tahir-ul-qadri that wether he is barelvi or not.and i didnt made any revert after this on that page.and for your information that page is not related to this dispute.i didnt broke any rule there alsoDil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

as you are now talking about my revert by Qwyrxian.mr admin i added some contents with sources.user qwyrxian reverted that by questioning on sources.then i didnt reverted that.after sometime i collected more authentic sources and added it again and now it is accepted by users.even my sources are accepted my users see hereeven my sources are accepted my admin qwyrxian.just want to tell you that my edits are normal and i didnt broke any rule.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin please dont believe on thier long discussion.if i am a rule broker then an admin should block me but i didnt happend.even now these two are only users which think me problematic as problem is different.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin now about my edit on topic sunni islam .i added something with refrence from oxford dictionary of religion.that was reverted by user pass a method without reason.see here history.i am right even at that place (discusion is here).as other users is just deducting thier own logics.Dil e Muslim talk 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to report 184.21.73.166 because he is a suspected sockpuppet of Seanharger (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seanharger). One piece of evidence is his contribution. His only contribution is at Seanharger's talk page, which he claims for it to be "ridiculous" that I reverted two of his edits. But when I saw the contributions, that comment was his only contribution.

Now, while he has not done any harm yet,

Remember that

checkuser will not, in general, disclose a connection between an IP and a registered account. - David Biddulph (talk

) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhm. Then is it possible that he is just logging out and then using the IP address, Is there any way to figure it out? Thanks.

WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?}

22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

IPs cannot shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, as per

WP:IPBLENGTH.--Jetstreamer ^Talk

23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The IP was temporarily blocked anyway. Thanks, though.

WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?}

23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hang on a second - we have blocked the wrong person. WorldTraveller - who has a history of hounding behaviour - interprets
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One way or the other, WorldTraveller won't last long, specially considering their latest contributions, all of them intended at being judged as a good contributor in order to get easier to their adminship aspirations. I'll invite
    talk · contribs) to join this discussion. The messages WorldTraveller left at this admin's talk page speaks for themselves.--Jetstreamer ^Talk
    16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I followed a link to this ANI by accident, but now that I'm here: Jesus wept. Sean pretty much got screwed over here. I've unblocked Sean, unblocked the IP, warned Worldtraveler that if he mentions Sean again he will be blocked, and tried to clarify the situation at the surreal SPI. But surely the damage is already done. Whether or not to indef block Worldtraveller now or not is a discussion I'll leave to others. My instinct says yes, but that's probably caused by the toxic environment of ANI seeping into my soul; a warning is probably more appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have given a week - generously. Let's close this up, and deal with future issues with WorldTraveller should they occur in the future - which hopefully will not be the case. In the meantime, Sean will be somewhat free to recover a little bit from the ordeal, and WT will recognize that such hounding will not end well (

BWilkins←✎

) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block is actually best, here. As I said above, I would have preferred a clear warning. Along the lines of the warning I'd given him a little before your block: that he is to not mention Seanharger again. I think the pendulum swung too far in the the other direction here. Consider unblocking and leaving a clear warning, perhaps more general than mine, instead? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I just saw the previous block for the User:SirFart ridiculousness, so I no longer oppose a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see

Plus Michael Collins (Irish leader) ([36], [37]), Irish War of Independence ([38], [39], [40], [41]) and Partition of Ireland ([42]) The Banner talk 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Milowent has engaged in multiple very reude actions. This user has called me "The Unintentional He-man women haters club president". I do not appreciate this rudeness. This user has lied about what I said in a facebook discussion on the discussion which had no relevance to wikipedia, and used this to personally attack me on the discussion. In this [43] eduit she implied that those of us who do not see eye-to-eye with her "do not live in the real world. She has called me "the primary source of the problem", when I did not create the discussed category, was not the first person to add to it, I was not the first person to move people into it and out of Category:American novelists. Here persistent attempts to blame me for it and insult me and malign me in the process are very disturbing. They also suggest that their comparison to Nazis and to the support for slavery were both meant to be personal insults at me since she claims that I am personally resposnsible for the problem. Here [44] is where she calls me out with "do you admit or deny" that " your public facebook page you advocated that a female president should be called "presidentess"" I emphatically deny that as a false representation of what I actually advocated. What I advocated is people know as "mission president's wives", and officially identified with that title in the most relevant publications on the matter, such as this [45] Deseret News article that discusses their added role, should be called "presidentesses". This editor did not aplogize for comapring me to those who massively exterminated the Jews and Gypsies. This editor's rhetoric rhetoric of claiming I am "the most responsible" shows that their statements on the discussion of Category:Americn women novelists at CfD that those involved there were like the Nazis, shows that they are trying to specifically compare me to a Nazi. I do not appreciate such personal attacks. This [46] posting of a statement from my private facebook page was totally inaprpriate and clearly constituted a personal attack. Their false explanation of what I said, both on that page and in the discussion of Category:American women novelists is even more disturbing. Here [47] is where they bring up her totally personal attack on me, but falsely representing my postion on titles. Here [48] is where they bring in slavery, Here [49] is where she compares wikipedia editos to "Nazi soldiers". Here [50] is a diff where they trie to ban me from editing an article because the subject has supposedly "directly called into question John Pack Lambert". Tht is a new one, a-I have still to see where the subject personally attacks me, and b-when did it become possible to personally attack an editor and thus ban them from editing your article, and c- All I did was move the person to a more specific, by genre article, yet they have acted like I am somehow the one who has removed text from the article involved, which is totally not true. I find the tone of their comments on JohnHinsdales user page seen here [51] also disturbing. To call other editors edits "fecal matter" is needless rude and combative. I find the personal attacks very disturbing. Editors should not have their comments on wikipedia attack on false represenatations of what they have said elsewhere. To do so is a personal attack that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Milowent's behavior is out of control, as indicated by the cited diffs. Some action is appropriate to stop the disruptiveness and incivility. There are multiple parties to the situation, though, so there may be other editors whose behavior needs to be addressed. (I haven't looked to see who else might be at fault here.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Orlady, I have responded to JPL below. Hopefully you will not cuff me. I invite more editors to be aware of the substantive issues we are facing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that is quite the paragraph. To respond to all this would take quite some time. The short version: John Pack Lambert is the primary editor defending Category:American women novelists despite the NYTimes op-ed and numerous other respected commentators uniformly decrying this unfortunate event. Jimbo (whose first comment on the whole drama was titled "WTF" - ban him now for uncivility, btw!) basically suggested he might be banned for this behavior, though there's been no real push for a ban (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WTF.3F). What does need to be done is that the problem needs to be fixed. John, unfortunately, has also been willy-nilly creating other new categories since the "scandal broke", including putting the author of the NYTimes op-ed (Amanda Filipacchi) into another new category he created (Category:American humor novelists, also now at CfD). Indeed, I did empty most of the Category:American men novelists category because it was created as a JOKE by an editor who put two females who use initials into it. JohnHinsdale, an infrequent editor, then put about 50 of the best known male American novelists of all time into the category; I believe he did it as a joke, though he has not confirmed that. My actions have been in good faith, the "NAZI OMG" aspersions cast against me have come in the back and forth of discussions and not as personal attacks. I admit that I misunderstood JPL's promotion of the term "presidentess", which is an archaic term for a female president, but not the way he apparently intended it to be used in a context outside wikipedia. I also admit I used the term "fecal matter".

Lastly, I admit, though JPL calls me "she" four times above, that I am male. If I've been a little heated, I promise to calm down. But the most uncivil actions on Wikipedia are deeds, not words. And the deed that has been done recently to female novelists, even if done unintentionally, must be rectified.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An editor holding opinions different than yours is not grounds to compare them to those who put people in slavery or to Nazis. The bottom line is that disagreement with actions does not justify personal attacks. I do not think Milowent understands this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See John, this is why you have trouble interacting with folks around here. The way the slavery/nazi references came in was because Obi-Wan Kenobi pooh-poohed the whole categorization problem by saying the U.S. Library of Congress was just as guilty and sexist as Wikipedia. The comparison was ridiculous, so I noted the US Government also supported slavery, but that's wasn't a reason to endorse it. Obi then replied to my comment by saying I basically went Godwin in no time flat by referencing slavery--Godwin is a reference to invoking a Nazi comparison, as I noted in response. I did not EVER compare any editor to a slavery supporter or nazi. I tried to maintain good humor throughout a very very disturbing situation, which you have exacerbated in many ways since the "scandal" broke.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct what Milowent said, my intent in these edits [52], [53], was to point out that the world was making a lot of noise about one particular cat, but ignoring the much larger structural issues, both in wikipedia and in the broader world, over which those writing articles in the NY times should be even more incensed. I wasn't joking when I said why aren't they attacking the Library of Congress - these are professional librarians, professional category experts, and even they have so-called "ghettoized" categories for female novelists. Thus either they are also guilty of rampant sexism, or the whole thing is overblown and just a misunderstanding of the nature of categorization and sub-categorization. In any case, Milowent quickly turned the Nazi/slavery thing into a joke, and I don't think the whole Nazi thing is worth exploring further - it was a pecadillo and definitely worth moving on.

Milowent has however (a) admittedly emptied categories that were currently being discussed at CFD, in contravention of policy and (b) behaved in an uncivil manner, throwing around the terms racist and sexist with abandon. For this at least a trout is certainly merited.

In any case, I invite all here, especially Milowent, to take the

categorization quiz I put together, so we can see if anyone, on any side of this issue, can correctly and fully categorize a single bio without falling prey to a situation that would get you accused of either "sexism" or "racism". I've spent about an hour in total now sorting out all of the possible categories, and I'm quite sure no-one will pass the test (even my answer key is likely flawed!) - that's the challenge with this domain- you can correctly and in a non-sexist manner categorize someone in 32 different categories, but if you miss one - BOOM - you're a sexist. Non-diffusing gender/ethnic cats are actually quite hard to do really well, that's my main point - so accusations of sexism and racism are uncalled for and serve only to fan the flames rather than help us move forward with a workable solution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk

) 20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• • If saying "this whole activity is akin to nazi soliders "just carrying out orders," glad to see you make the comparison." Is not saying that those who created a category are like Nazis doing massive executions than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Can we please not fill this [soon to be] unmercifully long thread with you two going back and forth on this particular sub-point? Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• lol, Shadowjams. You just e/c'ed on following from me: "If you want to get in the weeds all day, I know the admins who work on this page really love it. Let's back-and-forth with increasing indents until we need 50 inch wide screens to read our debate. No need to talk about the substance underlying things."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hopefully someone with some sense will come along and close it right away - otherwise it will go and and on and on and might get ugly. I've been asked on my page to adhere closely to policy, (especially civility and AGF), which has had a chilling effect so won't say any more at this time.
  talk
  ) 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The disruptiveness over this issue is not limited to these two editors. There are a few others who have been fanning the flames with personally insulting comments and/or allusions to ignominious historical events. It wouldn't do much good to block several editors. I suggest that the experienced users who have been misbehaving (including JPL and Milowent) should withdraw from the battlefield (stay away from the discussions for 24 hours) -- but only after you excise the personally offensive comments you have made. A renewal of hostilities may lead to more severe sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the best response to this debacle. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, "mission presidents' wives" is a somewhat unwieldy term to be using, so I can see why someone would want a shorter alternative. "Presidentesses" would probably be too much of a neologism though to be using in articles though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this one - that is another reason for a nice wet trout for Milowent. Going off-wiki, finding a random facebook posting an editor made having nothing whatsoever to do with wikipedia or the articles under discussion, and then mis-representing the intent of that posting in several places is going too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's comment illustrates why the issue is totally irrelevant. Facebook and news article comment board comments I have made were with the intention of creating a new use of a term. I fully accept that terms are not to be created on wikipedia, and have not to my knowledge tried to do so. I edited the article on Mission (LDS) to reflect the most recent policy changes but did not try to insert the new term into it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to Obi, I did not go trolling around off-wiki for the presidentess thing, it was posted by others on twitter. But I can't believe anyone is focusing on that tiff rather than the underlying problems. And for anyone still interested in the weeds, I am discerning JPL didn't know the pop-culture source of my one edit summary joke referencing him as "the unintentional He-man women haters club president" for doing most of the editing work removing women from the American novelists category, which is what triggered the controversy. Its from a 1937 Little Rascal's episode.[54].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, *you* grabbed it off twitter, and then *you* posted it in various forms and made various accusations about it on several pages. I see that you've apologized about that, so I would also consider that closed - once the wet trout is applied. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, there is now a Salon piece [55] decrying the recent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi's page as "revenge editing" since the 1st op ed appeared. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but off-topic for this particular discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic? What about this detailed expose of JohnPackLambert's actions in the The New York Review of Books by James Gleick?[56] He concludes, "People of Wikipedia! You have a problem." No one rational, absolutely no one, is complaining about editors like myself who have raised the red flags and tried to stop this fiasco.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Milo, you're still engaging in the same sort of behavior which brought you to ANI in the first place - for example, going off wiki and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Now, the James Gleick piece clearly relevant, but the Salon link has *nothing* to do with JPL. You seem really obsessed and upset with what the media is writing about us here, but it is all going to blow over, and once several hundred women have been put back in the famous Category:American novelist category, everyone will go away - even as endemic ghettoization remains. There won't be more exposes in the NY Times or Salon or anywhere else about ghettoization of Christians, of native americans, of male prostitutes, of gay people, etc etc. Those people out there, that are writing this stuff? They don't care enough to fix it, so I tend to ignore them more or less...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I got brought to ANI by the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem. I love how when Wikipedia is the subject, some editors wish to ignore all those same sources on which the project is built. Its pathetic, which is why most people are staying away from this thread. Let it be closed and let the CfDs continue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are asking questions about Wikipedia's culture, how the use of procedural tactics to shut down disagreement is why many people are inclined to not help, but just to complain. A direct quote is not a personal attack, but it did provide relevant context to the matter under discussion, and this procedural attack on Milowent is entirely disingenuous. Certainly Milowent's research here is not "unsupported" or "baseless" or whatever. Avt tor (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a "proecudral attack". This is a legitimate complaint about persistant lines like "those of us who live in the real world". The attack implied, that anyone who disagrees with you does not "live in the real world" is an unacceptable personal attack. If you disagree with decisions or policies, voice views on those. However to engage in personal attacks on other users, as this editor has done, is totally unacceptable. This is a requirement of civility in wikipedia, and when a user has been persistently insulted, lied about and attacked, it is reasonable for them to respond. It is a lie to claim that someone advocated something that they never did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I brought up very specific complaints about personal attacks. This diff [57] is not civil dialogue at all. People should not be summarizing edits with personal attacks, as was done there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL, you need to let it go immediately, rather than continuing to berate Milowent here at the same time you complain about him to a third party while deleting comments you don't like on your talk page and creating another edit war over a category. What your doing is a textbook example of not being able to take criticism at all. You cook lots of omlettes at CfD, it's hardly surprising that you've broken a few eggs, Milowent's being one of them.

p

17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some outside media have claimed that Category:American women novelists was the work of "one misguided editor". This is clearly not so. To take an easy to study example, there are two articles under the letter E in that category, added by two different users. I probably added the most articles to that category, but I added neither of the articles under the letter E. Both of the articles under the letter E were transfered from the parent Category:American women novelists. On the other hand, the claim that it is "edit warring" to add someone back to a category they clearly fit in, while it is under discussion is a strange claim, when the person was removed while the category had a tag on it that said "Please do not empty the category" and no comparable direction that says "please do not expand the category".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Filapacchi is sort of defending you John, she agrees you were not alone, the problem is more widespread (and I agree), even if you went on a "spree" in early April.[58] She also does note, however, "The editor who went on his spree in early April (username Johnpacklambert) did something particularly interesting and annoying after I'd been put back in the "American Novelists" category. He took me out of it again and put me in a new category he had just created: "American Humor Novelists." He also added three men to it, probably to make it look ok. Another editor then came along and undid what he had done."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:American humor novelists still exists and still has most of its original contents. The fact of the matter is at one point we opened our article on Filipacchi by saying "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." At least to me that line said "she belongs in Category:American humor novelists." The whole rhetoric of "probably to make it look ok" suggests there is something wrong with sub-cats, which is a very problematic view. However a search for "humor novel" on wikipedia turns up multiple results, so it is clearly a term that is used. Whether it is one that is well used enough to justify a category is another question, but the rhetoric of "make it look ok", with its claims that this is all vendentta driven is ridiculous. Filipacchi has clearly failed to assume good faith, and we should not be repeating her poisonous attacks on editors who are trying to abide by rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

User has a history of contentious and frowned-upon practices regarding WP:CfDs and categories. His talk page is littered with requests to change his behavior, and notices of edit-warring regarding the addition or removal of categories. There have been numerous instances of him mass-adding pages to categories he wants kept, and mass-deleting pages from categories he wants deletion. Oftentimes, the adds or deletions are of dubious correctness, and often occur when consensus is forming against him. But also troubling is his OWNership of CfD. JPL responds to almost every CfD out there (a bad practice in and of itself), and often makes 5-10 comments in CfDs, usually deriding detractors. Most troubling is that he's dug in on a number of CfD discussions over a number of months, often making 40 or 50 comments in a single CfD and berating almost everyone who disagrees with him. The combination of this attitude combined with the general dismissiveness of comments on his talk page (when I asked him to tone it down one time, he asked a mop to block me) indicates that JPL has problems getting along with other Wikipedia editors. A perfect example of this is how he's reacting to Milowent above; someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted. Jimbo himself has noted that JPL is giving Wikipedia a black eye. It's time for JPL to be forced to step away from WP:CfD for a spell.

• Response If This user really does not think responding over and over again to people who differe from their views at a CfD nomination is appropriate, then why exactly did they do it on the discussion of Category:People from Los Angeles, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For one, because it is patently ridiculous that that category is at anything but

p

03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the other hand this editor has been going around doing things like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Hampton_Brewster&oldid=553080371&diff=prev} which are totally inapropriate removals of a category while it is still under discussion. It has the added result of excluding the person involved from the Category:American women writers tree, a tree that is not even nominated for deletion (it is possbily going to be renamed, but that is another matter).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The antecedent in this discussion is you, JPL, and you're correct in that you have been inappropriately adding categories to Brewster and other categories in violation of BRD. In other words, you've been edit-warring. This is particularly egregious on Brewster as at least three editors have reverted your BOLD edit, and you've undone all of them. You're yet again nearing 3RR regarding categories

p

19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against adding categories that exist to people that clearly fit in the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is against edit-warring, though. Edit-warring knows no right or wrong.

p

19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban Johnpacklambert from CfD?

Related issues

Three days ago I posted the following about the whole broad area here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can some non-involved admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists, plus the CFD pages on subsequent days and the categories involved in the various discussions.

What we have here is:

• Controversy about the existance and/or method of population of Category:American women novelists, with the corresponding effect on the contents of Category:American novelists.
• Media attention and off-Wiki notification of the state of affairs.
• An initial CFD discussion that on my screen is already 36 screens long after just two days.
• Other categories being created and often rapidly nominated for deletion and/or merger. So far I've spotted Category:American male writers, Category:British men novelists & Category:American men novelists.
• Edit warring to add or remove articles from all the categories involved.
• Accusations of bad faith and sock puppetry. There's already been one investigation.

...and adding to the complications are not only the media interest but a lot of confusion about how category hierachies work and are understood to work, plus a number of contributors appear to have been dormant for years.

All this is causing some problems and possible violations. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)