Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs)
31,762 edits
→‎So tell me: new section
Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs)
Administrators
100,472 edits
Line 356: Line 356:


Still think he is a "good admin"? Gets involved in an edit war wit ha user on ANI and then blocks him[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYoureallycan&diff=501131881&oldid=501131790]. Yep, Magog never lets personal feelings cloud his judgement. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Still think he is a "good admin"? Gets involved in an edit war wit ha user on ANI and then blocks him[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYoureallycan&diff=501131881&oldid=501131790]. Yep, Magog never lets personal feelings cloud his judgement. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:Ah, that's it, I'm taking this issue to ArbCom. This is both contribution stalking and a thinly veiled attempt at forum shopping. Darkness Shines has repeatedly shown he is not capable of editing in this community. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:43, 7 July 2012


The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Vyasan

Could you please re-block User:Vyasan for violating the topic ban which you placed on him (see User talk:Vyasan#More inappropriate edits); you also blocked him for a week on June 8, and extended the ban. However, in this edit, his first since the block expired, he immediately made a comment on Talk:Nair (which I will remove under the provisions to remove comments of banned users). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boing beat me to it . Thanks for reporting him here, however! Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big range but I am beginning to suspect evasion using IPs beginning 117.236 - see the history. It is probably pointless taking it to SPI, though. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern; however, the range is a tad too big for my tastes, so I have semied the talk page for a week instead. Should he be back after that, I'll extend the semi-protection. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
semying the talk page for a week was an apt decision :-), cheers ! VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am not Vyasan. I am sure you can figure that out from posting styles though I am not aware of Vyasan's posting style. I am showing up User:Sitush's obstructionism and his sidekick Qwyrxian is here to stifle debate.

Now that VS seems to be coming around to my charge of obstructionism by User:Sitush in the Talk:Nair page, is he also going to get blocked?

This is a serious issue because User:Sitush and User:Qwyrixian are deliberately obstructing debate and change in the main Nair article. I smell caste prejudice and I would like to find out how this can be brought to the attention of someone who can arbiter this issue.

I am also going to request to unprotect because the charge is false and was made without any good evidence. I am amazed that a few Users have so much influence here that they can play all kinds of games here.

Please do the decent thing and unprotect the page.


OK. The Protect page says that I should first try with the admin like you.

Please unprotect the Talk:Nair page. You can read my comments there and figure out that I am only trying to wrest away the page from User:Sitush who is insistent on maintaining the main page according to his ideologies.

You should unprotect because you quickly blocked the page without even making a cursory check. I have been only a reader for a long time and only a few days ago did I start editing. I haven't shown any malicious intent. I haven't changed any main article. Done absolutely nothing wrong except try to produce discussions on a few sections on the Nair page. Can't people have multiple discussions about editing different sections? Or does wikipedia follow a policy whereby a page is owned by someone (like say User:Sitush here) and everyone has to only discuss what this user wants?

This page protect was patently unfair and biased towards your favourite users. Shame on you!

First of all, please try to cool down and stop making personal attacks on other editors, such as Qwyrxian and Sitush. The fact Sitush was reported various times and never sanctioned, by the way, should indicate that he was not doing anything wrong, considering that the community — and not a single admin — reviewed his actions. Regarding the protection of the article's talk page, you appear not to be Vyasan, so you can create an account and, once you have done so, I will grant you the confirmed flag which will allow you to edit through the semi-protection. I'm not going to lift it for the moment, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of bias is to limit any information from the Nair community. It is like saying that French history written by a Frenchman is not acceptable or Jewish history written by a Jewish person is not acceptable. This kind of nonsense is continuing and I am helpless in figuring out how this can be combated. That person seems to have an arm-lock over the main article and refuses to let any change happen that is not to his/her taste.

If you can tell me some remedy (other than creating a username), I would be very grateful. I am not creating a username because all such people who questioned User:Sitush have either been banned or they have left in frustration after being mobbed by his admin friends.

There must be at least one decent admin here on wikipedia. I have already tried with a few..

Sitush is not trying to exclude sources written by Nairs, he's merely trying to exclude those that are trying to depict the Nair as the best caste that there ever was, which would violate one of Wikipedia's most important policies, namely WP:NPOV, which mandates that all articles be written using a neutral tone; furthermore, some of them fail Wikipedia's requirements regarding reliability, cf. WP:RS. It has nothing to do with bias, but rather with following Wikipedia's rules. And, if you're not willing to create an account, then you'll just have to wait for the semi-protection to expire, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ok. I posted the above before I saw your edit MrSilvio. I am not going to make a username for the reasons I mentioned above. I have found at least three users who have been banned or left in a huff after picking a fight with User:Sitush. You haven't addressed the other procedural issue that I asked: aren't users allowed to debate multiple sections or has wikipedia become a site with moderated articles?

Thanks for the response btw, because I have been trying to get responses from several places over the last 3 days. I apologies for being a bit rude.

But no apologies for taking names because this is a personality issue and I suspect bad motives because ultimately this is a caste thing.

Yes, you can debate on multiple sections, but you have to take into account what Wikipedia's policies mandate. There are some limits to what can be included in an article and they have nothing to do with bias. That said, Sitush is not Indian and neither are Boing or Qwyrxian. We are not interested in slandering a caste or in praising another; for instance, I am Italian and, though I have studied your culture (your law, mainly, I must admit), I don't have any horse in the caste race... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I saw your message on my "page". I just can't figure out a way to deal with a person who is a master at wikipedia bureaucratese. The best way to fight bureaucratese is to learn it myself and throw it back. But who has the time to invest? It's no wonder wikipedia editors have left in droves.

You have been incredibly decent to me and I apologize again. But I will be giving up. I had made the same noises before but I didn't want to give up just yet. I seemed to have inspired at least two people to talk up. But they are being crushed by User:Sitush again (you can see it happen on the Talk:Nair page right now). Now you have given me a nice break to get over the whole thing. Lesson learnt about the authenticity of wikipedia.

IP, the problem is not one of having several discussion threads running at the same time but rather that there have been several threads running about the same thing at the same time, which is just pointless. Furthermore, if sources are being queried then it makes sense to examine them in a logical sequence because a scattergun approach is liable to bring chaos to any review of their reliability etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if you find it difficult to pay attention to all that is happening there, then don't pay any attention. Wikipedia doesn't run only because of you. The rest of us can and will debate and change what we want. Just because you are a master at wikipedia bureaucratese doesn't mean everything will run according to your arbitrary rules. You have repeatedly set down arbitrary rules as I saw in case of refusing to mention the caste of the former Chief of Indian Army. But you have powerful allies in the admin team and so you can get your way.

A good example is how the page got semi-protect simply out of a false allegation from you. All it took was you to allege something. It's also funny that your closest buddies were on the issue even before it was broached here. I wonder if you are in touch with them off-line.

@Salvio, no he is simply refusing to hear out Nair or Nayar authors. Go read the garbage he is putting down in the Talk page. Thanks for slandering whole communities. Sitush is clearly of South Asian origin. I will bet that.

Look at all the Indian pages that he is marring. Complaints all over. But he seems to be the Guru of wikipedia.


@Savio, just making sure you get this because I posted it on Boing! said Zebedee page.

User: "done the needful" Sitush is clearly not South Asia, Indian or of Indian-origin and of course pigs fly.

http://www.cnngo.com/mumbai/life/10-indianisms-652344

So please do the needful, Mr Savio ;)

You may want to see that after a few minutes of 1 , this happened !!! and presently this is ongoing . Anyways I have presented my observations at WP:ANI. However, It does appear to me alarming that everyone who gets in to a dispute with the same two users, seem to get a ban within minutes even without an edit war history (presently that includes me). User:Sitush is definitely a good-editor and I donot think he is a casteist, but I am genuinely concerned that any consensus-building is converted to filibustering because of certain inappropriate behaviours/status-belief or vehemently discredited through ad hominems or ban happens !!!. I understand that caste –related articles need to be watchlisted and patrolled to prevent disrupting edits from caste warriors, but I believe the present situation may have developed in to totally another matter altogether. I have provided at WP:ANI a sample of what those observations are. VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Thanks

Thanks about sparing me the boomerang. Well sure the consensus was that there was no hounding, would you now informally intervene in the dispute? I really don't want anyone blocked or banned, however the said editor is ruining my editing pleasure. Thanks in advance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I jumped the gun, only the hounding has been closed and not the proposal. :-)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion is ongoing and there is no clear consensus, for the moment, so I did not feel comfortable closing it just now. I'm sorry. I will monitor the discussion, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erode

Have you got time to review today's history at Erode, an article that I pruned not too long ago. Spifft suspects a sock but I am less sure. It is certainly odd, however, and I didn't seem to get very far when I tried to sort the issues out with the original reinstater, Senthilrockz. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It seems as if I am having one of those days. A contributor to that article has now doled out a barnstar encouraging another to take legal action against me. Bizarre. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just rollbacked the edit in question and was about to leave a warning on their talk page, but I see you beat me to it; today I'm feeling lenient and, so, will not block for the moment, but I'm about to take a look, to see if I can detect socking. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, you were right. Two socks indeffed & master blocked for a week. Should he be back, please let me know and I'll block/semi-protect as needed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More Spiffy than me. User:Sinsen is the probable master, apparently. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your memory scares me... Sinsen's edits are stale, so I could not checkuser him, but the available behavioural evidence is enough to convince me that it was indeed the same person operating the various accounts. So I have reblocked Senthilrockz, this time indefinitely. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will spare you another! My bet is that the indef blocked User:Vermapriya1986 has morphed into User:Priyankanift, a SPA with a fascination for puffing up Govind Kumar Singh. I will send that one to SPI. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sitush is here defending the Situshpedia. His allegations are accepted at face value despite having been found completely unfound and perhaps motivated in my case.

Modus Operandi: See anyone offering strong opinions or changing Situshpedia, run to a favourable admin, accuse him/her of being some banned user from the past and voila! The admin immediately accepts the charge.

As a checkuser, I have access to certain private bits of info; in this case, after running a check on one of the accounts mentioned here, I saw that all three were a confirmed match: same IP address and same user agent. That's as blatant as it can get... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! Then why did you jump the gun on spurious allegation against me (I am referring to the Vyasan). Did you private bits of info tell you something that even God doesn't know? Also, what's with the buddy-buddy camaraderie between you and Sitush? I have noticed the same with other admins too but I don't see the same admins being all buddy-buddy with other minions.

There is a saying in English and since you are Italian, I am sure you will find it all the more interesting.

"Caeser's wife must be above suspicion."

Curiously enough, we have a very similar saying in Italian as well; that said, if you recall, I confirmed you were not Vyasan and offered to grant you the confirmed flag to allow you to edit through semi-protection, but you refused because you do not want to have an account. That said, I try to be friendly to anyone who drops by my talk page and I don't think that an occasional witty remark can be seen as inappropriate. Do you know why Sitush often "wins" debates? Because he is experienced and actually know Wikipedia's policies — and tries to abide by them. Take the case discussed in the next section: there he was dealing with a person who was edit warring to include primary sources into an article, whereas Wikipedia tries to only rely on secondary sources. He was warned and yet persisted in violating two policies; a block was inevitable. No conspiracy there, no favouritism. It's just that there are rules and those who persevere in not following them end up blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first translate wikipedese into ordinary English.

Primary Sources = witness accounts, Native sources etc Secondary Sources = Orientalist Euro-centric sources As usual, the White Man wins. But it's not your fault. You didn't develop this cruel system.

But Sitush doesn't win only because of his politics but also because he has a network of friends who allow him to get away with anything he wants. His opponents are pushed to the brink and eventually banned. Case in point is that of [User:Vettakkorumakansnehi]. The guy is much too careful so that he doesn't get banned now. But he was pushed to his wit's end and reduced to calling for help. But none of it helped him in whatever he was trying to do. I think he will get banned eventually just like anyone who dared to go up against Sitush.

Your semi-protection was wrong because it was based on a spurious allegation. The decent thing to do was to accept your mistake and remove it immediately because the cause of the semi-protection was wrong at the fundamental level. It would have also dissuaded Sitush from making such quick allegations in future. But you insisted on keeping it and helping Sitush game the developing consensus on the Talk:Nair page. This is how Sitush wins. Because of his biased friends like you.

Indeed, an encyclopedia developed and controlled by armchair politicians. I wouldn't have cared for this site except for its ability to sell garbage as facts. It's too dangerous and in this particular case, an open attack on our identities.

Next, we will see American Colonists' opinion of Native Americans as facts.

Warring at Kulin Kayastha

Since you are familiar with WP:3RRNB and are around at present, please could you take a look at the contributions of Ruderow at Kulin Kayastha. They have been warned of both EW and the caste sanctions, and I have tried to engage. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard one-day block for edit warring and standard topic ban. Please note, however, that you're on the verge of breaking 3-rr. I don't want to be a pain in the neck, but just saying... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I was aware of that. I am not great at maths but can usually manage to count to three, or even four on a good day <g> I had initiated a discussion some time previously but I won't be reverting any time soon due to the bright line. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not great at maths but can usually manage to count to three, or even four on a good day. I can count to 20; when naked, to 21... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Don;t forget, I've had accidents involving toes and angle grinders ... and I am currently using some very large chainsaws! - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, in that case I believe I'll steal my daughter's abacus... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand wikipedese but clearly Situshpedia must be defended. Ban, block, delete etc etc ad nauseum in service of Sitush.

Take look at the Talk:Nair page to see how he vanquished a building consensus under VS. The whole thing was buried under a mountain of wikipedese.

Could you please go through Sitush's reverts on Kulin Kayastha page and verify if they are at all required. In the very first place, I was the one who had written the article, which was later completely edited by Sitush citing problems with citations and references. I did a lot of research later and then came up with proper citations and references, in which I took care of all the issues being debated on the talk page. Even those edits were reverted by Sitush, with very vague explanations. I then sought to undo their reverts and explain why they should at least go through the edited portions and before I could do it, I saw that Id been reported here and you had promptly acted on the report blocking me for a day on all edits, and for three months on all kayastha edits, under your "WIDE" discretionary powers under Caste Sanctions. It is amply clear that {u|Sitush}} hasn't put in any good research in writing this article. They have brought this to a personal level and have been reverting all edits, I have been making to the article to make it more substantial and well referenced. Id be really happy if you could go through the article and compare the edits, and assess the concerns expressed on the Talk Page by various other editors. The edit war is actually being spearheaded by Sitush on the article, and its just that I got reported, you'd observe so if you were to go through the edit history. In the light of the foregoing, please also consider revoking my ban. Wiki users expect to get accurate (maximum possible) and well referenced material on Wikipedia. Edit wars harm users more than anybody else. Kindly be prompt in you action. Also, wouldn't it be in the interest of fairness that if an Edit war on an article is RAGING, BOTH warring parties are banned from editing the concerned article,and a neutral third party assesses the entire situation.Ruderow

Administrators tend to deal with behavioural problems, whereas content disputes are left to different methods of dispute resolution. In this case, I blocked you because you broke WP:3RR, a rule which prohibits users from making more than three reverts on the same article within a period of 24 hours. It's a bright-line offense, which means that, no matter if you think you're correct, if you break it, you get blocked. Sitush did not break that rule, as he did not revert more than three times. That is why I did not block him. Regarding the actual content dispute, from what I could gather, you were trying to source some statements to a couple of judgements, which are primary sources, whereas Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to back up statements. That said, if you intend to follow one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods — only one, you choose which one: RFC, third opinion, WP:DRN —, I may relax your restriction, to allow you to participate in said discussion. You just have to tell a. if you accept my proposal and b. if so, which DR method you choose. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long shall this continue?

You have received your answers, please stop bickering. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Salvio, TopGun is again trying to get people blocked[1] although it is very clear how people came to the article. DS through this discussion. I think what constitutes the actual stalking is TopGun trying to get DS blocked again for simply editing an article. Then, TopGun just edit-warred what has been pointed out on the article's talk as blatant source falsifications back into an article.[2] I am sorry, but this is disruptive editing and damaging to wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war, I made a single revert... look at the no of reverts JCAla made.. this is clear cut adminshopping and calls for WP:BOOMERANG as I'm being accused of an editwar in a blatant lie. My report is self explanatory and also that was not just against DS... it was for both DS and JCAla who both followed me and Mar4d yet again. JCAla is editing without gaining consensus and his own view that a source is misrepresented is not even verified yet... and OR is not an editwar exemption in anycase. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are following us. You have followed me to Civil war in Afghanistan (1992-1996).[3] You have followed me to Muslim Brotherhood.[4] And now you are stalking both DS and me by again adminshopping at Magog's. This explains everything. TopGun has crossed a line here. He restored - what has been pointed out - as clear source falsification. This is simply nothing more than disruptive. JCAla (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already involved in Civil war in Afghanistan (1992-1996) dispute.. that is the first dispute we had; at Taliban. I can't possible "follow you there". I made a single edit ever, not relating to you, at Muslim Brotherhood and you've accused me of following you there 10s of times and Salvio has not taken any action there.. that's clear cut WP:POINT. A single revert in favour of BRD is not disruption in anycase (even if I restore OR - though I doubt that I did). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, our first dispute at Taliban was about whether Pakistan today supports the Taliban and had nothing to do with the Afghan civil war. You came to the Muslim Brotherhood article - which you had never edited before - mere hours after I had edited that article for the very first time. This is self-explanatory.[5] You restoring serious source falsification - not OR - is damaging to wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTHESIS is also OR if you call it that per falsification or whatever... but as you see that is still not an exemption and a permission for you to restore or remove content more than once (that's editwar). And you continued the first dispute to being about the civil war which you are still on with on multiple articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Source misrepresentation, not OR (and this is only one out of several examples from that article)

Ahmed Rashid writes in "Pakistan and the Taliban":

"The paramilitary [Pakistani] Frontier Corps were used to help the Taliban set up an internal wireless network for their commanders in the field. Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and the Air Force sent in technicians to repair Kandahar Airport and the MiG fighter jets and helicopters the Taliban had captured. ... When the Taliban launched their second attack on Herat, the [Pakistani] ISI weighed in with a limited amount of military support."

Mar4d made the following out of it (a clear-cut source falsification):

"According to an April 1998 column published on The Nation by Ahmad Rashid, the Taliban's attacks on Herat in 1995 were independent actions."

This was the version I introduced removing the source falsification:

"According to "Pakistan and the Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid, also published on April 1998 as a column in The Nation, Pakistan furthermore directly provided limited "military support" in the Taliban's September 1995 offensive against Herat ..."

TopGun restored the source falsification.

JCAla (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘How about you both just stay off Salvio's talk page and give him a chance to respond? Like the other 500 or so times you were both warned about bickering on others' talk pages. Present your case and get the hell off of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This probably wont be connected to a user since the guy was bold enough to create an account.. but a proxy or meat puppet nonetheless. I guess it will be easier to CU now (though less likely to produce results). [7] --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I guess I should take that as an accusation. Well, go ahead, check it, got nothing to hide. But if it is proven in any case that I am not connected to the IP, actions should be taken against TopGun for making wild socking accusations. He should have waited to revert the IP unless it is proven that it is a sock. That is the way it goes and the way it always went. Even worse, he again restored the misrepresentations. Obviously it seems to be beyond TopGun that other editors are opposed to his edits. Ironically, TopGun has had a variety of IPs popping up supporting him in the past including countless Nangparbat socks but also undisclosed IPs and socks on web proxies. JCAla (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, both TG and DS edit in the same general area so I'd go easy on the stalking/hounding accusations if I were TG. I'd also suggest that both of them go easy on reporting each other otherwise I don't see any alternative other than the total site ban that was proposed on ANI earlier. Act grown up and stop running to admin pages every two minutes. --regentspark (comment) 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long the pattern should get before I wait...last time it had to be about 20-50 articles? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of things, I have checked the IP and he doesn't seem to have been a sock at all. Of course, there is always the possibility of meatpuppetry, but the guy seems clean, which means, I guess, that TopGun ought to apologise and self-revert. That said, I agree that this is a content dispute, that should be solved through WP:DR. On a personal note, I add that I, in this case, I tend to agree with JCala. I would not go as far as calling it source falsification, which is a serious accusation and, in my opinion, requires the accuser to prove a pattern of violations, but, nonetheless, I personally believe that the content he reverted back in does not reflect what the cited source says. Regarding stalking/hounding, RegentsPark hits the nail on the head, again, as far as I'm concerned. There is a limited group of users who edit most of the articles in a relatively small area. It's normal that from time to time someone will follow someone else to an article and vice versa; but this is not stalking to me. Considering the circumstances, there is stalking when a person repeatedly shows up at articles he's never edited before to revert the edits made by the other editor in a short lapse of time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bring up a pattern for you next time for the stalking then, though I meant it to be a continuation of one I previously gave... this article was never edited before by JCAla and DS. About the user... any reasonable person would have called it an obvious sock or atleast meat... see Magog's talkpage for the clarification.. I can't self revert, the IP now created an account and reverted me anyway... but my suspicion on JCAla was not baseless (even if wrong about direct connection - I wasn't gambling about it being JCAla as I presented the case)... he was being supported on an obscure article. The user account has gone to add stuff JCAla proposes often to two articles at the moment so I am still doubt full about this account. An SPS enters a contentious area to support one editor.. that's typical. Also, I was accused of editwarring by JCAla, when I had made a single revert to him, where he was reverting more than once instead of following DR. That's not civil. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of an apology, there come even more accusations. False ones. The other article edited by Woundedwarrior1 (the new editor), I have i. e. never edited at all. I find TopGun's logic quite ironic given the countless undisclosed web proxies and IPs and Nangparbats that came to back him up. Also, for TopGun to suggest I am new to the Afghan civil war topic area in the category of which the article in question was placed is quite ... well. JCAla (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait.. that apology was supposed to be to the new editor, not you... and also, alleged Nangparbat's support for me.. the guy is already banned and he and DS stalk each other... his edits are well expected... something not related to me! Stop accusing me with that. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes with regards to the closure, sorry. Thank you very much, Salvio, for your time checking everything and also for your explanations. :) JCAla (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

This is going to really hurt your eyes, but could you please review the contributions of User:Vettakkorumakansnehi at Talk:Nair, if you have the time. (You will need quite a few minutes!) If not, could you pass this request on to another admin who is familiar with the caste sanctions stuff? Qwyrxian is involved, btw, and so can do nothing. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, the user placed a {{help me}} tag on their talk page, complaining about myself and Q. Blade saw it, checked what was going on and imposed a 6 month article ban. Although for reasons that I am not sure of, someone has since raised the entire farrago at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vettakkorumakansnehi. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the thread and don't understand why it was brought up on WP:ANI... Not that it matters, really, since Blade had already done the needful by then. Well, finally someone else has edited WP:GS/CASTE. I was feeling alone there... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your post here coincided with VS going off on one in the ANI thread. This could run, you know. Re: the log, I am sure that someone else has issued a ban before it existed but am blowed if I can find it. Which probably goes to show how useful the log will become.

I am also hoping that User:Sitush/Common may come in handy in future and will continue to develop it. If nothing else, it enables decent edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kulin Kayasthas - Consistent discrepancies and edit war

I would like to bring to the notice of administrators that this page has been a subject of edit war consistently. I believe, such disputes must be resolved through discussions. Defending one particular source, and holding the view that it is the only reliable one (that too by one individual), and consistently reverting any new addition from other reliable sources, without trying to arrive at a concensus, is also an act of systematic and tactical vandalism. When so many people stand up and share the same concern, it must be addressed. We all know, caste information are sensitive and such issues must be handled with care. Why should there be such gross discrepancies within two similar articles within Wikipedia? Why should related article on Guhathakurta state - "To protect the Brahmins, five Kshatriya came with them", and the same will be stated as "five Shudra servants" in this article on Kulin Kayastha? Doesn't this question the reliability of sourcing within Wikipedia community? This literally amounts to misleading people about facts. Is it only about defending one particular source under the garb of policies and getting into an edit war? This is not expected from a platform like Wikipedia, and I would like to request you to look into these issues seriously. Calcuttan (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calcuttan and welcome to Wikipedia! To determine what varna the Kulin Kayastha belong to is what we call a content dispute; these controversies are usually resolved using one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, which, mainly, involve discussing the issue until a consensus emerges. Admins are supposed to help with behavioural problems, for instance edit wars, but have no special power when it comes to disagreements regarding the content of Wikipedia's articles: they may chime in with their opinion, but they do so in their capacity as editors and not as administrators. In this case, I suggest you discuss the issue on the article's talk page and, if it's impossible to resolve it there, you then may try to start a thread here — this is a noticeboard where editors evaluate if a source can be considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. I know it is difficult to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia for a new users, so, if you need help learning the ropes, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page at any times. Happy editing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance and advice. Calcuttan (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Oversight probably needed

[8] I doubt this IP is this person, what with the IP being on the other side of the world from Exeter. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that edit summary warrants oversighting, but I'll ping the functionary mailing list to hear their opinions; in the meantime, I have revdeleted it. Thanks for reporting. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About time, I reckon

The Original Barnstar
They do not come better than the original - anything else is the movie of the book etc. And as the Original says, "This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated." It is, very much. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of stalking hounding and by-passing consensus

That page was inappropriate, in my opinion, and I wholeheartedly agree with the way Future Perfect has dealt with the matter. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now if you combine this with the last report which you thought was in a vacuum, you'd know that this is a continued pattern of what I reported before the IBAN:

  • Incivility: [9]
  • Never edited before (Nangparbat sock had a single edit then, no "sock excuse" here): [10]
  • Further hounding in support of vandal (or in the very least an IP making really poor edits): [11] [12]

And then this essay, there's only and only one way DS can find it... stalking contributions! - he nominated it for deletion. And if you read the content, there's nothing pointy in there, actually all good suggestions and civil notes one what should actually not be done and any reasonable person would agree with. See also the deletion discussion. And another editor who has previously followed my edits and regularly jumps in to support anything at ANI against me calls the contributors "friends of NP" [13] (and again in the deletion discussion). That is very blunt.. the essay even itself is not about the banned user, but how new users are treated in the topic area. Also that DS and DBX have both reached this obscure essay, either both of them were stalking the edits or there was some canvassing involved. DbigXray has been told a number of times at ANI/WQA to stay away from me.

Need to take a look. The point is not whether he nominated it on a reasonable basis, but why is he following my contributions (and yes, as you said, just to revert me and nominate anything I contribute to for deletion).

DS has also nominated [14] a template for deletion in a very short period for the third time after being kept because he couldn't get consensus [15] [16]. The same thing was done at Inter-Services Intelligence article RFC which was started four (or five?!?!) times and each time consensus was to exclude what DS proposed (and was closed by atleast 3 admins). DS then by passed consensus and created a content fork which was AFD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism. Now he's created two more articles on the same (Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan‎ & Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants) with the same content he couldn't get consensus for at the main article and I did not edit there so as not to get hounding accusations my self. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the essay is a clear occurance of harassment against Darkness Shines, as it is very clear to whom the what ... Nangaphobia ... is meant to refer. Additionally, given that all the dozens of sock IPs and accounts were actually Nangpabat the name is completely misplaced as it infers that DS was suffering from some kind of paranoia when it fact Nangparbat's dozens of socks are a reality. Also WP:DENY. The essay therefore qualifies for speedy deletion. After all those warnings, still the creation of such a clear pointed attack essay ... meanwhile Darkness Shines has been trying to bring forward the mediation.[17] My 2cts. No further bickering from me, don't worry. JCAla (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That essay does not mention or refer to DS. Many editors do the same thing to new users - with that very reference. Anyway, that is not the dispute here... the dispute is stalking and hounding. Let's not discuss it here. Let him respond this time. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can all these accusations of hounding stop now please. I mailed Sal roughly an hour before I nominated the attack page for deletion. I also said how I got there. As for History of Pakistan AN3 is on my watchlist. And that IP editor was not a vandal, his sources were good solid academic ones. I often go look into content disputes from AN3 as can be seen in my contributions. I request TG refrain from these constant allegations, the most of the articles I have ended up on which he edits is due to Nangparbat always editwarring on them. I will leave it at this, Sal should you require further information please mail or use my talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ruderow wants your attention

Please see this edit re: dispute resolution/unblock. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked him, hoping this will be a good idea... And many thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciated it (and, to tell the truth, I did need it! ). Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All changed, changed utterly"

"All changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born." - let's take you motto of the day as a starting point. When I asked you a while ago to consider unblocking an editor with a difficult history, and you tried, - who would have thought that his precious beauty would appear on the Main page? Not me ;) - Did you know that you are an awesome Wikipedian (29 March 2012)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. To be honest, I'm glad to see that the editor who shan't be mentioned is creating high-quality content; I'm quite happy he was unblocked! Thanks for adding me to the list of awesome Wikpedians: I really appreciate it. And that gem is truly magnificent! Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Beacon Center of Tennessee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beacon Center of Tennessee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xoje007. Thanks! ⇒TAP 10:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does this edit comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? Would like third opinion. Mar4d (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also this.. Mar4d (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DS has been blocked as a result of those two edits. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Ricketts

Why do you have to delete Ronnie Ricketts' wiki page?

I am sorry, but I do not recall deleting such a page; I have tried looking for a deleted article about Ronnie Ricketts, but could not find any. Are you sure I deleted it? Could you provide a link to the page that contained the article or to the log entry that indicates that I was the one who deleted the page? Or, at least, point me to the editor who created the page? I am sorry, but you have not given me enough information to help you — I have deleted almost 7000 pages since becoming an admin here... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiYa

guess i was unintentionally doing something in the wrong way.

have been trying to correct some errors on the fair trade association web page.the main one is the logo. the one shown is the logo of a separate, but in the past a connected organization. have had complaints of incorrect logo use - not sure who put the wrong one up. the complaint originated from the facebook version of the article.

anyway .. in this process, have found a previous personal account, which i am now logged into to ...

will try to substitte the correct logo (its loaded up now) but have been stymied by the wiki processes/rules, which i have not been able to navigate.

thnx for help.

bob

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! The problem was that the username you had chosen gave the impression you were editing on behalf of a group, which is not permitted; with this username, you will not be blocked. I see that you have succeeded in changing the logo; if you need further help, please feel free to drop a message here and I'll try to help you, if I can.

Regarding Wikipedia's rules, they are complicated to follow even for experienced users; the first page you ought to familiarise yourself with is WP:BESTCOI, which contains the best practices for editors with a conflict of interest. Those are the most important rules for you to follow; the others will come in time. Don't worry too much about it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Yes, I got the correct logo in place -- will read through BESTCOI, cheers. Now there are warning messages on the page - is there something I need to do to alleviate the concerns raised ..not sure what next .. thnx again .. bob
The two templates on the page are designed to let us know what problems there may be with an article; each of those warnings places the article into a special category — for instance, {{unref}} places the article in this category. There are various Wikipedians who patrol those categories and try and improve articles and, so, those templates are very useful to us. In this case, the former template on the page asks for third-party, reliable sources, such as newspaper articles dealing with the Association, to support the material that's included in the page. The latter, on the other hand, is designed to alert us that someone editing the article has a conflict of interest.

Now, if you want to alleviate the concerns raised, the best thing you could do is add reliable sources to the article... Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan's RFA

You know, reverting this just shows the anti-IP bias we have on WP. If that question had a signed in editors signature attached to it you'd have never reverted. You'd have used a talk page. Your IP bias is a bit sad (well worrying is a better word). Nevertheless, I have refactored it. 86.150.68.109 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, thank you for your protection in removing that question; however, I chose to reply to it to address the concerns raised. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to hear if Salvio would have reverted it with such brusqueness if it had been a logged in editor. I suspect not. As for your confusion that it is unacceptable for people to challenge belief systems that are religious, yet merrily accept a challenge to your belief system on paid editing on a website, you've gone down a lot in my estimation Ryan. Beliefs are beliefs, and they're all as valid (or indeed not) as any other. It's disappointing that you feel it is not acceptable to challenge them. Cherry picking, I'm afraid. 86.150.68.109 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of your question were basically nothing but trolling ("childishly naive", "tooth fairy"); so, yes. I would probably have reverted such a question even if it had been asked by an established editor. To tell you the truth, I also considered blocking you, as the question you posed was needlessly inflammatory. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

So tell me

Still think he is a "good admin"? Gets involved in an edit war wit ha user on ANI and then blocks him[18]. Yep, Magog never lets personal feelings cloud his judgement. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's it, I'm taking this issue to ArbCom. This is both contribution stalking and a thinly veiled attempt at forum shopping. Darkness Shines has repeatedly shown he is not capable of editing in this community. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Table of Contents