Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Update.
Message added 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently provided some useful input regarding a d.o.b. controversy at Vijay Kumar Singh. The man has just popped up again, this time in a corruption enquiry (a common event in India!). Your eyes would be appreciated, as and when you can. I'll be trying to keep things within WP:BLP constraints etc but these Indian "scandals" tend to attract a fair amount of poor editing. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd extensively prune both the "Dispute about his date of birth" and the "bribe offer" sections, as I believe they quite blatantly run counter to WP:UNDUE. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure the bribe thingy belongs in the article... I'll keep an eye on it to make sure that no BLP-vios are added, but my suggestion would be to start a BLPN thread to, hopefully, get consensus to remove a lot of useless trivia from the General's page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would I, given the choice. As it is, I know how these things work in the India sphere and they'll just keep growing. even if BLPN decided otherwise That being the case, at least I can try to keep it correct. Any moment now, someone will add the dreaded "timeline" template and WP:CITEKILL will doubtless have to be deployed. I've seen too many of them, I'm afraid.

Nonetheless, BLPN is worth a go if only as a convenient reference point should reverts etc become as common as I expect to be. So, I will do that thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Vijay Kumar Singh. I've left a referral note at Talk:Vijay Kumar Singh also. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have chimed in there. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much activity in the BLPN thread. I'll be away over the weekend and thereafter will implement what ever the outcome may be. I think that is ample time for people to comment, but unless you plan to be around yourself then perhaps it would be wise to semi-protect the article from Friday until Sunday evening? One common failing in situations such as this is to add content that omits words such as "alleged", and which can therefore land us in a heap of trouble. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to, I believe it would be inappropriate to semi the article; after all, pages are not protected pre-emptively and the article has not received any vandalism and, furthermore, having expressed an opinion on BLPN, I could be seen as involved... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered about the pre-emptive bit. You'd think that there would be an exception for BLPS, but so be it. I guess that as long as Indian newspapers do not carry weekend review/comment sections as those in the UK does, we'll be ok. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the being one of the best admins I've ever known, and for your tireless contributions to keep wikipedia free from vandals at WP:AIV. Take this as a reward for your hard work! Ab hijay  ☎ 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two barnstars in two days. I must be doing something right. Seriously, Abhijay, many thanks for this barnstar. I'm about to add it to my collection. Please, do keep up the good work. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Salvio :) Ab hijay  ☎ 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, since I see you're online and after reading your userpage, I am wondering if you could block an account for me. I have an alternative account (User:Calabe1993) which I have lost the password for. I have a different alt account (User:Calabe1991) which I had created as a doppelganger, but I believe I can still access and use instead as the alt account. Since it is inaccessible, could you block User:Calabe1993 as a doppelganger, and I will change the tags on it? Thanks. Calabe1992 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, scratch all of the above. I can't access either of those accounts. I guess both can be blocked as doppelgangers and I'll change them to such (one account has privileges also that can be stripped). I've created a new account at User:Calabe-alt to take the privileges instead. Calabe1992 14:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All  Done. I have blocked both accounts, revoked Calabe1993's permissions and granted rollback and confirmed to Calabe-alt. Happy editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Will be updating the tags. Calabe1992 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess while I'm here, could you protect the userpage User:Calabe-alt, won't ever need to be changed again. Calabe1992 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean full protection? Or is semi ok as well? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi is fine. Thanks. Calabe1992 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all appears good. And at least now I have another account I can actually use. Calabe-alt 15:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, when I wrote that above, I should have written move-sysop also. (Someone hijacked my userpage once so now I move-protect all of them.) Sorry for wasting so much time here. ;) Calabe1992 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I have just changed the settings. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Calabe1992 15:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	unblock decision
	Thank you for assuming good faith in an unblock decision, saying "There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself." and "blocks are not supposed to be punitive", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the gem, I really appreciate it! And it's also the first time someone gives me one as a present. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know the photographer is blocked ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After checking who the author was, I remembered a very, very long thread on AN. I'd rather avoid pushing my luck, making a second unilateral unblock in one day. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems a shame that nobody can give a valid reason for the block. (well, other than that they used to be somebody else that used to edit here) Consistency on WP? ... please let me know when that happens, cause I have yet to see it. IJS. — Ched :  ?  12:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the top story of my talk, will you? No rush whatsoever, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious: your motto of the day: "when joy disappears, look for your mistake". I wrote "He was despised" when BarkingMoon disappeared, look for "rejected", find "goodwill toward men", see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Easter eggs for you on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On this day the Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning an approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. 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) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw on the Arb Enforcement page that you said "Regarding [Volunteer Marek], currently, the relevant policy states the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other. It may be unwise to do so, it may even invite drama in certain cases, but the point is that it is allowed and, so, Volunteer Marek should not be sanctioned either." However, a) VM's not meant to comment on Russavia (and therefore his DYKs) at all (see here, "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [i.e. including VM] are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution." - there seems to be no end date given, so it's still valid), and b) if we're talking about the iBan - then the spirit of it (like all WP policies, such as 3 reverts) should be adhered to, not just a literal, hair-splitting interpretation. I was wondering if you'd looked at the issue like that? Thanks for your time, Malick78 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I don't really know if we should apply the standard rules regarding WP:IBANs or that Arbitration remedy, but this is really not important, because the effects of both sanctions are pretty much identical in practice, if I'm not mistaken. In this case, Volunteer Marek was prohibited from commenting on Russavia as well as from interacting with him, but he did not interact with him and only commented on the DYK nomination and that's not enough to violate his ban, in my opinion. Such a restriction has always allowed sanctioned users to edit the same page, provided they do not interact with each other; admittedly, it's quite difficult to enforce, when people edit the same article or take part in the same discussion, but that's how IBANs work, unfortunately, and until there is consensus to change the relevant policy there is very little a single admin can do, I fear. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering and explaining your view. In my opinion, since on a DYK if someone criticises your article's nomination you naturally want to respond to them... VM's comment was a direct challenge to Russavia and the nature/spirit of the iBan. Cheers.Malick78 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered something... how VM once reacted when I commented on the content of a DYK of his. Notice his perception of it as an attack... The fact that he left a comment on Russavia's DYK is telling, if he can see my comment as a direct attack. Does this change your view of his interaction with Russavia? Malick78 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he saw it as an attack given he thinks you are harassing and stalking him? It is not an IBAN violation to comment on a talk page which another editor has also commented on. Read the bloody policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DS, this was a message to Salvio, whose opinion I value and am interested in. It wasn't an invitation for you (or random others) to make a comment, especially a rude one. That said, my reading of the policy is different to yours - since the 'spirit' of policy is generally considered important on WP, yet you are discounting that consideration. Furthermore, your comment that "It is not an IBAN violation to comment on a talk page which another editor has also commented on" misses the point that the page was started by Russavia about an award for a page he created. It was not a random page he had commented on. Lastly, VM makes (seemingly) a dozen accusations a day of being "stalked", "harrassed" etc. I'd take them with a pinch of salt.Malick78 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, that certainly gives me pause as that reaction certainly has to do with Volunteer Marek's attitude/purposes, when he chose to comment on that DYK nomination. I am about to ask him to leave a comment here, if he wishes; I'm not sure this changes my mind, but it's certainly worth considering. Thanks for bringing that up! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and consideration. In 5 years editing on WP, VM is the only editor I've really had bad clashes with (including being shafted by the EEML, and his involvement in it, when pages I started were deleted unfairly (later reinstated)) and I believe it's good for him to be forced to take responsibility for his less constructive actions, due to their negative effects on the smooth running of WP. Again thanks.Malick78 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not actually sure that VM is technically still under the interaction ban. Looking at the arbcom decision, it says that "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution." However, the only sanction against Volunteer Marek, then editing as Radeksz, was rescinded nearly two years ago, thus technically lifting his interaction ban which was premised on his being a sanctioned editor. JN466 12:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, it's hard to tell if the EEML thing is still valid, though others seem to think it is. Still, you'd hope he'd be more careful with his behaviour knowing how often he's been in trouble before.Malick78 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Jayen. I personally hold that, at the very least, commenting on a DYK nomination falls within a grey area; however, I'm not persuaded by your argument, here. All editors who were sanctioned during the EEML case were also banned from interacting with Russavia, but there is no consequentiality between the two sanctions, in my opinion. The same set of users were restricted, but the sanctions themselves are not interdependent – which explain why the Arbitration Committee only lifted Volunteer Marek's topic ban and not also his interaction ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between commenting at an DYK and commenting at a AfD? During a previous AE report, another admin clarified that it was okay to comment at an AfD even if it was created by someone under an iBan[1]. This understanding was demonstrated by the subsequent participation by those under a mutual iBan including VM in the AfD. To state VM's note to the DYK page[2] is now a violation when participation in an earlier AfD was perfectly okay is a somewhat inconsistent application of iBAN policy. --Nug (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a very important link! But this only confirms what I already held: that commenting in a discussion started by the other editor is not technically an IBAN violation. What's puzzling me now is whether or not such an action can be considered a violation of the spirit of the restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally, the spirit of an iBan is to enforce focus upon content and move away from focus on the person or persons. Reverting or making edits with the intent of provoking others is unhelpful and contrary to the aims of Wikipedia and is something to be discouraged; while making efforts to improve and contribute to Wikipedia without upsetting people is something to be encouraged. Articles don't generally make DYK status if they are subject to an AfD, and Volunteer Marek's note was of assistance to those who administer the DYK promotion process. The only way that could be construed as breaking the spirit of an iBan is if an editor also initiated the AfD, as that could be construed as torpedoing a DYK nomination on purpose to upset the other editor. However this particular AfD[3] was initiated by User:Harizotoh9, who is someone uninvolved in any of the EE disputes, and thus Volunteer Marek's note was simply informative and in keeping with the spirit of the project. --Nug (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all have egos as editors, and it's quite clear that if you've got an iBan, pointing out a problem with someone's DYK is likely to rile them. VM knew what he was doing. If we analyse his comment ("Please note that the article is now up at AfD and is very much inappropriate for being featured on Wikipedia's front page"), we see that a) he passes on info (it's up at AfD), but b) he twists the knife ("is very much inappropriate for being featured on Wikipedia's front page"). We all know what an AfD means to DYK, stating the obvious was unnecessary, but particularly for somebody with an iBan. Furthermore, the AfD wouldn't have been secret for long: anyone on the DYK page would have clicked the link to the article and seen straight away it was being AfDed. VM's comment helped not one iota - it was, as I've said, stating the obvious with malicious intent. Hence my highlighting the "spirit" of the rule. All I see now are VM's defenders wikilawyering. Malick78 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibans are imposed when two (or more) editors really cannot get along and their interactions are basically nothing but disruption; in these cases, either the community or ArbCom force them to avoid each other. Restricted users can still edit the same pages, because, if it were not so, this would be prone to gaming – imagine we hold opposite views regarding an article and someone starts a discussion on its talk page; if we were prevented from editing the same page, I could make a comment there in bad faith, just to stop you from expressing your opinion.

Now, to post on the same page as an editor you cannot interact with can still be a violation of the spirit of the restriction, if your actions are in bad faith, in my opinion, because, in such a case, you're basically subverting the original purpose of an exception intended to protect your ability to express your opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, I'm not sure what exactly are you asking. I've explained the situation with Malick78 at least twice already (recently), once at AE and once at AN/I [4] (the part starting with "I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 ..."). To repeat myself, two years go or so I had a disagreement with Malick78. He then began going through articles I created or spent a lot of time working on, trying to find something wrong with them, in retaliation (he didn't have much luck). Here's an early example [5] (and my response [6]). Here's another [7] (lede's don't need citations if the info is cited in the text). I have asked him on at least three occasions to stop posting on my talk page, which he has ignored. He has been warned by others not to follow me around. Honestly, I should have just reported him back then and nipped this in the butt but I generally dislike reporting people unless they get really obnoxious. His comments at the Feeder of lice DYK nom happened in the context of this discussion [8] where he was basically doing the same thing - in this instance because I added a citation he requested to an article and removed an inappropriate sic tag. Note that OTHER editors on the talk page warned him about his behavior as well.

This has continued more recently, including his participation at the AE request. He has nothing to do with the AE request but merely showed up to just pour gasoline on the fire and agitate for a block. Recently, he edit warred to keep his comments on my talk page after I removed them - he was warned for this as well, particularly since he almost broke 3RR [9] [10] [11] - basically edit warring for his right to harass others. He also said things like "I will post on your talk page whenever I like".

Finally note that I did not report Malick78 for his participation in the Feeders of Lice DYK - though perhaps I should have. I don't have an interaction ban with him - though perhaps there should be one. He is currently possibly facing sanctions for edit warring here. What if I showed up there and started agitating for him to get hefty block? Maybe I should, since that appears to be the game he's playing.VolunteerMarek 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, please don't lie VM/spin things so much. I reported someone else (Greyhood) for 4RR. I'm not facing any sanctions myself (and in 5 years I've never been sanctioned for anything). I've not followed you around on WP (though you have followed me, posting 2 minutes after me on pages you've never edited before) - but with us both being interested in Polish matters our paths have naturally crossed at times. Lately, you deleted something on my talk page left by a 3rd party, so I told you not to do that on your talk page (you then deleted my comments without apologising for interfering with my page, so I restored them - hoping that it'd get you to explain your interference with my aforementioned page). When I looked at some pages of yours for problems with them - it was merely to show you that your deletion of sources of mine on Murzyn as not being RS wasn't consistent with the types of sources you yourself had used on pages you had authored. It was a matter of comparison. No stalking. But of course, when a man is drowning... he'll grab at straws and accuse everyone else of being at fault won't he? Sorry for wasting your time on this Salvio. Malick78 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided diffs and proofs. You just made stuff up. Note that OTHER people have repeatedly told you to leave me alone. OTHER people have repeatedly told you that your behavior was problematic. OTHER people have told you that your contention that somehow I'm stalking you is patently ridiculous. OTHER people have warned you about edit warring. Etc.VolunteerMarek 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, your friends (some from the EEML) did back you up when you needed it. True enough.Malick78 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malick, I'm sure you realise this has no bearing at all on the case at hand; it can only cause drama... My suggestion is for you to drop the stick. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is my course of action when one of my stalkers arrives at a new article I created add adds a lot of coatrack crap which has no place in the article other than to distract from one nations hideous human rights records in the region? You know cos of the 1RR you put me on? Check it out[12], and tell me I am wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two alternatives, either concentrate on the content side of the issue and start WP:DR or concentrate on the behavioural side and, if you can prove that the other editor is hounding you, try to get him sanctioned. In any event, when interacting with you, the other editor is also under a one-revert rule. He should be aware of this... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR is entirely irrelevant here as he introduced new content, hence I am always going to be 1R behind. The content has no place in the article, it is about bloody Iran look at a map FFS. As for proof if he is hounding me look at the articles I have created and see who i first to edit after me[13][14][15][16] turned up there and put 8 tags on the article, and guess who was the first to comment on this article Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan[17] And today I welcomed a new user who had just created an article, look who is next to visit the guys talk page[18]. This is the same crap I had to put up with on the Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article, he comes in and cause a lot of trouble for no reason other than to antagonise me and I want it bloody well stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, it certainly looks like hounding; he's been following around from one article to another. I don't want to act without giving him the chance of expressing his opinion (I have left a talkback on this talk page), but, right now, my opinion is that either he accepts to stop following you or a block will have to be imposed... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So he has been online and does not appear to be bothered about responding? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've afforded him the opportunity to express his opinion here; next time he appears out of nowhere to edit an article you created or, more in general, that he gives the reasonable impression he's followed you around, I'll block for hounding. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvio, could you for a minute take a look at this version of the article and, per all the rhetoric going on here, fathom any thoughts about what exactly is WP:COATRACK? The Balochistan region overlaps into three different countries and currently, there is an ongoing insurgency active in the Pakistani part (led by Pakistani security forces) and in the Iranian part of the region, led by Iranian security forces. I obviously know a lot about the topic, otherwise I wouldn't be editing it. As the diff shows, I added sections on Iran and also a bit on human rights violations by Baloch seperatists. I had also done some formatting and introduced relevant wikilinks to related articles. Now, could you tell me, what kind of message would you get if someone just came along and did a blanket revert on whatever factually correct content you introduced into an article, along with formatting, with an unclear edit summary going something like this: ...No, the artilce is about Balochistan, stop coatracking crap in. Not only were my edits undone, but everything was plumbly removed without any rationale/objections presented on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you could you also take a look at these questionable edit summaries by DS:

• Saying that I am "coatracking crap in to save the blushes of Pakistan"
• Fucking 1RR restriction, again shit sits in an article.

All this drama came after I made just a single set of edits to the article. To me, the only thing apparent from this revert is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a bit of an article ownership ego. Now, coming to the question of hounding, that allegation is invalid because I first edited the article on 27 March. DS was aware of that but he didn't have any objections until that point. On 28 March, I started a thread on the on the talk page about proposing a section on human rights violations by Baloch militants and DS even took time to respond, saying "That is next on the list, currently reading sources. I intend to expand this article and bring it up to GA status. Any sources you find would be appreciated." Now that I edit the article myself finally, I get accused of "coatracking". In the other "hounding" links presented by DS, I think you'll agree that the diffs are quite non-controversial and self-explanatory: "2" and "3" are of me simply adding categories. Going through my edits, you will observe that I tend to add and create categories quite often (especially to new articles); out of my 28,000+ edits to Wiki, I have made 3,500+ edits to categories alone, and potentially thousands of other edits which have involved adding categories to articles. At "5", I was not the first to "turn up" at the article. Rather, User:Smsarmad was when he nominated Darkness Shine's article for an AfD. That article was later deleted by an admin, after a number of editors opposed its existence. And technically, neither does "7" count as hounding because here I am simply notifying a new user that an article they created (Target killings of Hazara) is redundant to an already-existing article on the topic: Persecution of Hazara people. I would have made that point across anyway, because I made contributions to the latter article in September 2011 as the history shows and the new article is a mirror of that.

Based on the above, your proposal to "block for hounding" is far-fetched. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, how did you get to those articles other than following my contributions? And guess waht. Iran has fuck all to do with the human rights abuses in Balochistan, it is pure coatrack to try and spread the blame around for Pak's hideous HR record in the region. And I will remove it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I remove anything related to Pakistan from the article? No. I simply added content on HRA by other involved parties. What's coatrack with that? Were you not the one arguing that a human rights abuses article should contain all involved parties, earlier on the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir article? How come you've taken a sudden u-turn? And when you create articles related to Pakistan, expect to have editors interested in that topic/editors who edit articles related to the topic to be involved in your article. That's what WikiProjects are all about - editors editing articles that are of interest to them, it's impeccable logic. I don't think I need to expand on your bias when it comes to these articles.... in fact, even outside editors seem to form an opinion: A cursory look at your contributions......to the Wikipedia, thus far, reveals the fact that you are paranoid thus incapable of contributing to the Wikipedia objectively and with neutral point of view about anything Pakistani and Islamic... Mar4d (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as hounding is concerned....... says who, someone who edits overlapping articles that involve either TopGun or me? Need I say anything about the origins of the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir article, the mother of this latest trend of all "human rights abuses" articles? :) Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there is further proof that you are following my contributions, you had no way of knowing of that SPI as you have never edited the article which gave rise to it. The fact that you turn up at every article I create and being to junk it is an issue and it is certainly hounding. I began Human rights violations in Balochistan after reading HRW world report 2012. There is only one way you found that article, by stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rather avoid discussing any article in detail, as the issue at hand has nothing to do with content and everything to do with behaviour and, so, such a discussion can only distract from the important things: Mar4d, you have been following Darkness Shines around, editing articles he had just created, and this is upsetting the other editor. Please, stop. Really, there is nothing more to add: just don't do it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood. I am not following DS around, I've already given my position on that. It's a rather misconceived notion that I find all his articles simply by going through his contribs. I don't have to, because they all, at one point, show up here anyway. It is also a misconceived notion to pretend that Darkness Shines' conduct has been any better recently (at least as far as hounding is concerned). If I were Darkness Shines, I'd be really concerned with all these attitude tantrums. There are certain limits that he should abide by. He does not have the license to simply go around and make whatever random accusations he likes; he would also be mistaken to believe that he is somehow barred from wikiquette and has the express permission to use *coarse language* every now and then to describe the actions of others/comment on others. Mar4d (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really?[19] This article is not on that list as it is not in wiki project Pakistan. [20]This article is not in any projects as yet. [21] This one was not a part of wiki project Pakistan till you added it. So tell me again, how did you get to them? As your explanation holds no water. And BTW wiki is not censored, if I want to cuss on the odd occasion I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That obviously shows you know nothing about how it works. New articles don't simply appear from WikiProject tagging, they appear with these devised rules containing keywords. Mar4d (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That bot was discontinued on 25 June 2011. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, it does not matter how you get to those articles – though your explanation does not entirely hold water –; the point is that you're following Darkness Shines around and causing him to get upset. That's not acceptable. And that's all. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously he ignored your warning. [22] He has never edited that article before[23] And I do realize the content is actually unsourced, so his edit summary also makes no sense. I was looking for sources when he reverted but will have to wait till tomorrow now. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked for a day. Let's see if this gets the message across better... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, is it possible for my userpage to be deleted except for the current revision? I have some user boxes and things that I would like to dispose of permanently. Calabe1992 19:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is: you just have to ask.  Done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. :) Calabe1992 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salvio! :)

I recently requested that the Rafic Hariri article be fully protected, temporarily, on the grounds of a content dispute/edit warring. However, you declined, suggesting that I take it to WP:AN3 as it's only "one or two" editors. Please take a careful look at the article's history, and you will notice, that it definately isn't just one or two people - far from it. This edit warring/content dispute, is regarding a "corruption" section, and if you look through the last 250 revisions of the article, you will see it is constantly re-added, then removed. Please reconsider, thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, I hadn't checked well enough. Since you were requesting full protection, I only examined the most recent edit war, the one involving Bayyaklol (talk · contribs) – who is the one who should be reported to WP:ANEW, if he reverts once again –. Looking through the article's history further, I see a very long history of edit warring and, therefore, I have just semied the article for three months. I still think that full protection is not warranted for the moment, as the current situation is best handled through blocks, but semi protection was most definitely necessary. Thanks for your message! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-reviewing it! :D I swear autoconfirmed users and IPs need to start using edit summaries more frequently, that way it would be much easier to distinguish a long-period edit war between mutiple people. Anyway, semi-protection is perfect, I should have gone for that one. Again, thank you! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[24] Is an obvious sock. Appears out of nowhere and reverts all my recent edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has no understanding of dynamic IP addresses. I am not a sock. You should warn him not to make any personal attacks he has serious ownership issues with articles --39.47.46.80 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a static IP address actually[25] And given you called me a liar[26] perhaps it is in fact you making the personal attacks. Why are you stalking me? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter if you're a sock or not; if you start following another editor around to revert his edits, you're behaving in a disruptive manner and end up blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sal thank you for blocking him. Am I allowed to undo his edits? Or will that violate my 1RR restriction? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead; those edits were made in bad faith, so you can revert them without fearing sanctions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Mar4d is from Peshawar just like the IP. IP started to follow DS after Mar4d was told to stop the same behavior. Anyways, TopGun is circumventing his 1RR by asking fellow friends on wikipedia to revert for him. See TG asking for rv[27] and then User:mustihussain (now Altetendekrabbe) promptly acting on it[28] as he did before.[29] What to do about it? JCAla (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, actually: I have to admit I had that very same suspicion yesterday and, so, ran a checkuser. Technically speaking, the two users are  Unrelated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP admitted on his talk page that he uses two computers, I have reported Mar4d for sockpuppetry based on behavior. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let more experienced checkusers deal with the issue, but your suspicions were certainly warranted, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding TopGun, his comments did not breach WP:MEAT, but if he keeps giving the impression of trying to game his restriction, this will have to be discussed with him... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much for your effort! JCAla (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT involves recruiting new users which I didn't and there was no canvassing... article talk page was the right venue to ask for the revert since you were not adhering to BRD and an uninvolved user did that. Salvio, I know you clarified it to him but see his accusations in Magog's talk page history.. he has received many warnings for his accusations. I find it quite telling that he first baits me for 1RR by reverting me over again even when he added the content and 3 editors disagreed and then accuses me of calling my 'fellow friends' to revert for me. This is outrageous. You've to deal with this baiting because if I go to ANI I'll probably be banned from there because of the theatrics every one does when about to be blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowing that I'm on a 1RR JCAla leaves no chance just when I make a reasonable revert on any article. I removed a cn tag from lead to content which was sourced later and JCAla comes in right away and removes text from previously settled or stale disputes with the reason 'this was discussed' while it was discussed and kept (obviously that is why it was present). [30] This was being done repeatedly elsewhere but I thought it was too early to bring up. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you did not ask anywhere for people linked to you to revert or remove content that you did not like? I seem to remember that you repeatedly did exactly that like when you asked for content added by DS to be removed on the Pakistan article because you were not allowed to do it yourself. Now you did the same with reliably sourced content I added to the Balochistan article. Excuse me for seeing a pattern here. Mustihussain (now Altetendekrabbe) who acted on your behalf hasn't even given a valid reason for his rv.[31] (That exact content is in those exact sources.) I am not aware of following your reverts anywhere and I have certainly not baited you to do anything. But I am certainly aware of you simply removing thousands of bytes of content critical of Pakistani policies added and duely sourced by other editors.[32][33] I am sorry, if people (me included) do not simply accept this kind of censorship attempt.

Please see this extensive discussion about the other issue. The content had been removed when I last checked. Now I saw that it had been re-added. I don't really know what else to say to explain to TopGun that the Afghan communists allegedly supporting a Pakistani pro-civil government militant group (affiliated to the Benazir Bhutto family) against a Pakistani military ruler (who meddled into Afghan affairs) might constitute a meddling into Pakistani affairs but does not constitute an anti-Pakistan sentiment. The group that was supported was Pakistani itself and once partly constituted the civil leadership of the Pakistani state. Thus, such content is misplaced in an article called "Anti-Pakistan sentiment".[34] JCAla (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I did not ask 'my friends' to remove any content at any time. Asking at the article talk is the right place which is meant for such discussion. Altetendekrabbe did not act on my behalf, he reverted it as an uninvolved user. You pointed to the wrong section (that had no discussion). See this [35]. This was put back in because you failed to discuss or achieve a consensus. In anycase just right now your edits have been objected at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment and this means they need to be reverted per WP:BRD regardless of my restriction which only prevents me from reverting. But ofcourse you'll keep them there inspite of this and accuse anyone who reverts of being my personal friend. You've made similar edits on the Balochistan conflict article. I will definitely remove any content that does not adhere to NPOV (in this case it might be critical of Pakistan but that's just because you were the one adding it; pattern). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't act on anyones behalf. i suggest you take the accusations back. i also suggest you refer to me as altetendekrabbe. got it? it's common courtesy.-- altetendekrabbe  18:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, dear Altetendekrabbe, I will refer to you as Altetendekrabbe. I refered to you by the old name because that is the name I got to know you under first. But, no problem on that front. TopGun, I linked to the exact talk section. You wanted the content, both DS (in the previous section) and I told you that the content was not about anti-Pakistan sentiment. I will not repeat my arguments over and over again. In fact you did not achieve consensus to keep the content. JCAla (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only you discussed the content which stayed in the article and it was put back because your removal was not justified... read my comment again, right now you are not adhering to BRD. And that's not even what I reported here so keep that to article talk, this is for the fact that you wait to see me make an unrelated revert and then make all the reverts you want (including previous compromises, stale disputes or other content that you couldn't get consensus to remove) to exploit my restriction, may be you should be given a similar restriction too. That is hounding even if you didn't stalk me to that article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) Balochistan article: You made a general revert to reliably sourced content added by me. (This you do in a general matter to a lot of articles and sourced content by multiple editors.[36][37]) B) Anti-Pakistan sentiment article: I removed content (not about anti-Pakistan sentiment!) which was previously extensively discussed and was not kept (until you, whenever - so much for hounding - put it back there). C) Based on point A and B, your allegation of hounding I consider a joke of 1 April. JCAla (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are of old disputes with a given reason for removal. I don't know what you mean by a 'general' revert... if that means I reverted all your consecutive edits, that is exactly what I mean to do when I do it and I give reasons for my reverts. Let's not flood up Salvio's talk and let him consider what I pointed out. You can have the last word if you like. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were protected because of your "removal" (called censoring by others) and it was decided in nearly all cases that the content was due, verified and needed to stay. Just as a reminder. JCAla (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go. First of all, a request: please, do not discuss content issues here. Or, if you do, please do not expect me to take a side. I will only comment on behaviour and it would be far more productive to only focus on that, possibly with diffs. To solve content disputes there are various methods, but the intervention of an admin is not one; and rightly so, in my opinion. However:

• JCala, please remember that when you're undoing TopGun's edits or involved in a content dispute with him, you're under a WP:1RR too. Same goes for all other editors involved.
• TopGun, in this case, your edits were fine. You were commenting on the article's talk page and declared that, in your opinion, those additions were to be reverted but you could not. Please, consider however that your words could be perceived by a reasonable person as a request for someone else to revert on your behalf since you could not.
• Altetendekrabbe, while I believe you when you say that you reverted those edits on your own, it's always a good idea to be careful when you're editing in a contentious area and there are users who were imposed revert restrictions or other sanctions – this is a matter of perception too: if you are perceived to be tag-teaming with another editor to allow him to game his restrictions, it can inflame the discussion and cause drama.

I believe this is all; I apologise for the delay, and, if I have forgotten anything, please do let me know. Regards. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful. I'll try to better frame my wording in future such matters, however the purpose behind mentioning that I couldn't make the revert myself was to avoid some one telling me to do it my self and then me having to explain the same. In short, I made an open request (Maybe I should even have added the editrequest template to make it more official). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was already very careful not to revert anything more than once even before TG got his 1RR. But now the situation with Altetendekrabbe is different, isn't it? He has repeatedly undone the edits, has provided no valid argument and is not under 1RR. He asked to adapt the content to the new sources. The content however is exactly that way in the new sources also, as DS has also pointed out to Akrabbe on the talk. Is it ok then to undo his rv, since the reason provided was not valid? Akrabbe is not under 1RR restriction, so I shouldn't be either when dealing with him, right?! JCAla (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. My first instinct would be to reply that Akrabbe is under a 1-rr too, as this dispute involves an editor who is under a revert restriction – and because this would also reduce disruption, in my opinion –, but I don't want to stretch the boundaries or the rr imposed by the community to an unacceptable extreme. At the same time, I don't want to invite you to ask on ANI, since the last time I did so, the thread turned into a chaotic mess... Opinions on this? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, either Akrabbe and me both are under 1RR (he already rv 3 times, btw, and his version stands for two days now without the reason given even being valid) because dispute involves TG (someone with 1RR) or we (Akrabbe and me) are both not under 1RR when dealing with each others' edits/reverts ... to make it fair (because I may have to assume good faith but I know better about the connection, so ...). JCAla (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)JCAla's edits couldn't get consensus... the only reason they were there was because I did not violate my 1RR even when other editors contradicted his additions. The content should have been reverted right then. So Akrabbe did have a reason to revert per the discussion already present on talk page given that he responded to my request. Anyway, I will revert JCAla if he re-adds without discussing, so this is moot... DR should be followed as you suggested and all involved are well experienced with that. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what I meant. You must both edit under the same set of rules, as neither of you is directly restricted. My problem is that I don't know what those rules are: 1-rr or 3-rr? That said, I'm clearly not going to block you over a 1-rr violation, when the other editor has made more than one revert and was not blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. JCAla (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why should i get blocked? i'm not under any 1-rr, and i have never been blocked. jcala's edits are blatant violation of wp:npov in a long standing article. that's were the problem is.-- altetendekrabbe  12:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring pure and simple, your last revert was spurious in saying the content needed to be rewritten to match the sources, that proves you did not actually check the sources. Also calling me a troll was not civil. 12:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To explain the situation.

• March 20 (15:04) TG removes content which he does not like + content which is not controversial in a general rv
• March 20 (15:46) I revert based on verfiability of every part of the content
• March 20-31 Mar4d, DS, and another editor come to edit the article, everything is fine
• March 31 (23:23) TG asks for removal of same content he rv on March 20
• March 31 (23:41) Akrabbe (first time appearance on said article since at least late 2009) acts as TG requested on talk citing alleged unreliability of the source: Jamestown Foundation
• April 1 (07:17) I revert based on the fact that the Jamestown Foundation has been accepted as very reliable on several articles
• April 1 (10:36) Akrabbe rv again, proclaiming the same reason
• April 1 (11:19) I put content back in and replaced Jamestown with other reliable sources (Stanford University Press, etc.)
• April 1 (12:01) Akrabbe rv the third time, says "re-write according to the new source"
• April 1 (12:17) DS explain to him on talk, "The sources did reflect the content, you obviously did a blind revert without checking them.", he knows since he shared them with me
• Can it be reverted now?

Btw, TG is again claiming wrong consensus, a thing he was warned for in the past. The edits were accepted (except by him and Mar4d, who failed to read the full sources) until he asked for the removal and Akrabbe came in. JCAla (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is visible to every one... so no need to blame around... especially when you are making claims like you kept to 1RR always (with your block log in contradiction). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the talk page is visible to anyone. Obviously, I meant the time after I went to arbitration after which I decided not to revert more than once (in some cases twice) - except for cases of vandalism. And for my block log, 2010, when I had just registered, I reverted User:Lagoo sab's vandalism and his socks, but unfortunately some admins became only slowly aware of the situation with Lagoo sab and I was still unexperienced with regards to wikipedia. Didn't even know that a thing such as edit warring existed, was just reverting what was obvious vandalism to me. I edited without any problem for more than a year after Lagoo's agenda was exposed until you came along censoring first Pakistan's support to the Taliban and then a whole lot of other things. Bwilkins was justified in the mutual block for both of us, the rest was you successfully blockshopping on Magog's talk. We all know that ended in me seeking arbitration, after which I decided what I already said above. That has kept me out of trouble ever since. I have nothing to hide, thx. JCAla (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

let me add that there are only two editors who are openly collaborating here, namely jcala and darkness shines.-- altetendekrabbe  12:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And let me just say rubbish to that accusation. Were are my reverts on that article? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Altetendekrabbe, two more things: first, do not accuse other editors of malfeasance, unless you have evidence supporting your claim – failure to provide diffs after making accusations will result in a block being imposed on your account –; and, second, from now on, when you're involved in a dispute with another editor who's under a revert restriction, you are under that very same restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  are you implying that ordinary editors are subjugated to revert restrictions when they are in dispute with editors under a revert restriction?... do you have links to this policy? how can you tell that someone is under restriction or not?-- altetendekrabbe  07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This has become pretty much SOP in this topic area; you may ask any other editor (TopGun, for instance) and he'll confirm that. Currently, only TopGun and Darkness Shines are directly under a revert restriction (one revert per article per day each); so, when you're involved in a content dispute with either of them (even if there are other editors), you are under that very same restriction. When you're in a dispute with a different editor, one who's not under a 1-rr, the standard 3-rr is applied (though you should be aware that you can be edit warring even if you do not technically breach the three-revert rule – I'm not implying you have, I'm just pointing out something most editors ignore). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i wasn't aware of this. thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  10:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JCAla has ignored your warnings to follow 1RR and reverted me for a second time in the same day while I BRD reverted his major edits considered as POV (yes he made edits first which I objected to, there's even an RFC on a part of it). First edit [38], changed the scope of the article, includes blanking, and other major POV edits and terminology. He uses "per talk" in edit summary with clearly no consensus on talk and clean up in another edit summary while he blanked sections. The second revert [39], I actually meant to revert all his edits (and explained them in editsummary and talk) and he labels it as a general revert and reverts to his preferred version again. 1RR on me is only allowing him to push POV. If you take a look at his contributions, that's all he does atleast nowadays. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buona pasqua e giorni felici, Salvio. Now, on the content. Please look at this version which TG and Mar4d are restoring by edit war: [40]. Everything is mixed up. Iran with Pakistan. Three separate sections for economic and development issues. Tons of unsourced content. I did a major clean-up yesterday: [41]. Please look at the version open-minded. Pakistan and Iran were no longer mixed up. Everything was updated to April 2012. Everything economic, development was put under one section. Structure provided good overview. Unsourced content was replaced by sourced content. Because of TG's and Mar4d's censorship mentality this article is staying in bad quality. I told them to add anything if sourced reliably if they think something is missing but instead they undo everything in a general revert. Is it ok for the sake of wikipedia quality to revert back to the quality version from which they can then add their stuff? Best regards, JCAla (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he made it clear that regular editors rule on content, not the administrators. Useless to discuss content at this venue. You can use the same effort on article talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you also clarify if rephrasing JCAla's edits (with the same meaning in the end) and putting back are IBAN vio in the spirit, now that I cant even object to them anymore? [42]. This dispute was between me and JCAla to start with. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were not rephrased. I cleaned-up the whole article with content and changes never discussed before. Also, I am not asking for Salvio to provide his input on content but rather on structural quality, oversight and your censorship behavior which leads to poor article quality not just in the sense of content. That is disruptive. If someone conducts a major clean-up, you can add to it if you feel something is missing instead of restoring a bad quality version of an article. JCAla (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I do not regard it as a 'clean up' when you decide to change the scope of the article. Clean up is non controversial. I reverted because working on your version was impossible and at that time you were supposed to discuss. You have editwarred to get your preferred version stand time and again. I am not censoring anything, I reverted you on NPOV basis and it was not a poor article quality version that I reverted to. It was the long standing version, yours on the other hand had racist and POV remarks. So stop accusing me now. About the rephrase... that edit was re-adding the implication from this [43] edit which I reverted and was not duely discussed. I'll wait for Salvio's comments now. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really got nerves. 1) You come here looking for sanctions against me and DS while you are breaking your 1RR with ease.[44] And worse, 2) you are putting allegations out here which are [fill in words not to use here]. Rascist? Have you lost your mind? Is The Economist rascist? 3) The article version you reverted to has a) no coherent structure, b) mixes up the not directly related Pakistan and Iran conflicts, c) multiple sections for one and the same issue and d) tons of tagged and unsourced content. JCAla (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not violated anything. Look at the dates (if you're not too busy in the WP:SOUP). I wonder why didn't you revert the hoping IP, because this was one of the disputes we resolved just by talk page discussion. No comments on any other accusations and rude language. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I have not rephrased anyone's edits but my own[45] I do not see how this can be an IBAN violation, I have been exceptionally careful on this article due the editors involved. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that article sure is controversial. I must admit that I'm tempted to fully protect it to allow you to hammer out a compromise version on the talk page... That said, no blocks today. Because: a. JCala did not violate his 1-rr – he made a bold edit, was reverted and he himself reverted only once and, then again, even if you count his first edit as a revert, the matter is now rather stale (though I must admit it wasn't when you reported him here) – and b. TopGun did not violate his 1-rr on the other article either, because the first reverted was made a week ago – and, honestly, it's really not appropriate to go dig up dirt on the person who reported you, althought it's quite widespread –.

With regard to Darkness Shines, a general principle first: editor A makes an edit, TopGun reverts, editor A reverts him, editor B undoes his edit and then Darkness Shines reverts editor B, you could probably make a case that he violated his interaction ban at least in spirit, though it can be difficult to determine, when there are many edits by many different users as in this case. Here, however, part of the disputed edit was:

Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat, a part of Balochistan which refused to accede to Pakistan. Prior to having been mader part of Pakistan, Balochistan had enjoyed autonomy as a princely state under the suzerainty of the British Crown.^[1][2]

and the following is Darkness Shines' edit:

During the Partition of India the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan choose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the princely states by Clement Attlee.^[3] In april 1948 however Pakistan mobilized it's armed forces and deployed them in Kalat, and the Khan was forced the Khan to accede to Pakistan.^[1] The Khans brother Prince Karim Khan declared independence and fled to Afghanistan to seek aid and began an armed struggle which failed as by June 1948 Balochistan was subsumed as a region of Pakistan.^[2]

I believe, therefore, that there was no violation, here.

Finally, two things: first, let me apologise for my delay. And, second, JCala, grazie per gli auguri di buona Pasqua; altrettanto a te ed ai tuoi cari! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say if I edit something, I'm reverted I can still revert? As far as I saw 3RRs at AN3, all reports include the first edit made to the 3RR. 1RR has same rules. If first edit is reverted to a previous version, a second edit back to your preferred version will actually be a second revert. I have no problems with if he doesn't get blocked unlike him (so much for reporting me for two edits with a week's difference). The thing is, I can not revert a second time (or can I, per your above description?), if he can... he will never follow BRD. Once his version is in the article he doesn't discuss. About IBAN, you have probably missed the version I reverted from (ie. JCAla's version), that still talked about Pakistan invading Balochistan right after Pakistan got independence to make it a part of it. This second version ends up saying the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 3-rr/1-rr, generally, I tend to consider the first edit to be the bold one which starts the BRD cycle and, so, not to count it to determine whether the appropriate revert restriction was broken, unless the first edit is clearly a revert. This means that if you make an edit and are reverted, you can still legitimately revert once, but if, hypothetically, I make an edit and you revert me, I undo your revert and you revert again, then that's a violation. I realise that this causes a sort of first-mover advantage, but, in this case, I find it hard to construe JCala's first edit as a revert, when he was actually changing the article's content.

That said, what's the harm in having a version you don't like appear in the article while the discussion is underway and until someone else comes around to revert it again?

Regarding the alleged IBan violation, I'll take a second look. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... all the 3RR reports (and warnings) I've seen have included the first edit. Even per your criteria... yes, his first edit was a revert of content which was previously changed but that version stayed. If the first mover is given such advantage, BRD would be a useless concept. The harm in letting the first mover's version stay (whether it is me or any one else) is, 1) they might choose not to discuss and revert every time as I said about JCAla, 2) it is Bold, revert and discuss, 3) the edits were too complex to object to one by one and much easier for the person wanting to add to explain without making it TLDR for others, 4) it exploits my 1RR restriction effectively making it 0RR (I've reported atleast 2 other articles where this happened before). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objections and I'll start a thread on WT:EW to clarify what is the definition of a revert. My point is that I find it difficult to consider the addition of content as a revert (or even the reorganisation of content in an article) – and, besides, your interpretation gives the second mover the advantage, possibly causing the same problems. I add something, you revert, I have to start a discussion on the article's talk page, you choose not to chime in, but I cannot revert. Both interpretations can cause problems, if misused (which is why we can block editors who appear to be edit warring, even though they have not breached 3-rr). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the discussion, if any of you wish to chime in. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make it simple, as of now all previous blocks on me JCAla and other users were made with the first edit in consideration making BRD the way to go [46]. Ofcourse all rules can be gamed but the as an admin you can judge who is editwarring and reinstating his favoured version inspite of being reverted. Btw, how long after do you treat a case as stale... this one was less then 12 ours ago, had another user not reverted the version that was objected to (ie. did not have consensus yet) would be in the article. Keeping the status quo is the best way to go when objections are raised, in my opinion. I'll follow up there too. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a revert to add content never discussed before or to restructure an article in a way never done before. The very meaning of re-vert is to re-store something which was there before. It is a "re"doing of something. WP:BRD is just an essay, not a policy. WP:BRD-NOT is just as important. When content added to an article is reliably sourced, in this case with The Economist, and the source is rightly presented, the case for BRD certainly becomes slim to none. BRD can be misused for censorship, that is why it is not a policy. Also, the editor citing BRD to revert a major overhaul of an article is obliged according to that very same essay to first consider how he/she could adjust the article according to what he/she thinks needs to be written by working with the improved version. JCAla (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie, Salvio. Now to my question. I should revert that general revert as everything was simply reverted in a general manner. No valid reason has been given as of yet for restoring the bad quality version in a general manner, except a "NPOV" yell. I expect TG and Mar4d to work with, instead of against, other editors. The version restored by TG and Mar4d does not cite any sources for controversial issues, while the article after the overhaul did cite the Stanford University Press, The Economist, etc. There are tons of examples why the rv is simply censorship with no interest in the article's quality. As an example, the bad quality version has the attacks of the group Jundallah which only operates in Iran placed under the section title "2004-to date (led by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and Mir Balach Marri)" which is only about Pakistan. I structured the article into one section for the Iran conflict and another for the Pakistan conflict, in order not to mix everything up. Another example. Look at this section which was restored this way: Balochistan_conflict#Development_and_Human_Rights_Issues. I had cleaned up the whole section and sourced everything appropriately. Then, in the bad quality version, there are three separate main sections for economic issues, I had integrated them into one. But because of a disagreement over one or two issues TG and Mar4d undo everything? Wikipedia rules require them to work on the content issues instead of simply restoring a truly bad quality version. Is is ok or not ok to revert considering these issues? TG and Mar4d can always work on the controversial parts without undoing a major clean-up including many uncontroversial subjects. JCAla (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a general revert, and asking an administrator for such permission is useless because administrators do not rule on content. You can not by pass the discussion by calling my revert general because I gave reasons for making that revert. I started a discussion you should discuss it there and see what we can include. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is about conduct. The only reason you have given is your objection to the Pakistani army invading Kalat in Balochistan which can be discussed on the talk. Although, I am getting tired of rehashing historical facts endlessly with you. I have other things to do. ("South Asia's Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament", published by the Stanford University Press on page 175 states very clearly: "The Khan of Kalat [Balochistan] took his independence seriously, and when he resisted the incorporation of his land within the new Pakistani province of Balochistan, it required the forceful action of the Pakistani military ...") Besides that, you really think, you should restore such a bad quality version of an article for that one discussion? You know, you can simply change that one sentence or discuss it. That is not a valid reason for undoing another editor's improvements in a general manner. JCAla (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it about conduct. You have not commented a single time on the talk page which is enough to show everything, so I'm done here. But Salvio, you need to make it consistent for the next vios. Because I know, if I make a bold me and get reverted, I will be surely blocked for violating 1RR if I then make a revert. Whether or not it should be counted as a revert can be discussed at EW, I've been both the first and the second mover at some time or the other but I still support counting the first edit because it did revert the content already present. Or someone might wait for a week and revert the content calling it a bold move again. It gets vague that way. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented a single time on the talk? Talk:Balochistan_conflict#Misleading_use_of_sources_.2B_Content_issues. I see you have neither an argument with regards to your conduct (doing a general revert without proper reasons) nor the content (citing not one source in favor of what you restored in the article while ignoring the Stanford University Press). Salvio, please tell me, how to constructively work with such an editor. I see the policy on 1RR as already very clear and consistent. It is not the least vague. JCAla (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is this section: Talk:Balochistan conflict#Section break, but if he counts above, it is a revert and not a bold move anyway.. because I had removed the term invaded and some of the content he added previously. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, this is not stale yet.. here it happens again. See [47].. I revert a part of his edit [48] and he makes a second revert [49]. This is clear cut baiting and 1RR vio. Also in this case, I removed this edition of JCAla a few days ago and discussion took place after that. So both edits are reverts regardless of the debate above (infact it applied to above too). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. Please read my reply here: [50] JCAla (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing over the central point.

1. (14 March-16 March) There was a discussion on how to add a sentence about the Balochistan conflict to the Pakistan article.[51]
2. (07:39, 8 April) I added the proposed sentence as there had been no further objections for weeks on the talk. This is an edit, not a revert![52]
3. (13:49, 8 April) TopGun changed a term for the conflict inside the sentence.[53]
4. (14:12, 8 April) I reverted TopGun's change based on two arguments: a) the source (The Economist) used the term I had used and b) TopGun's change of term made the sentence grammatically incorrect. As far as I am aware there is a conflict between two actors not an insurgency between two actors. An insurgency is conducted by someone not between people. This is one revert.[54] (Note: The "opposed to" went in there by accident, I fixed it in the next minor edit.)

On the edit war report TopGun claims this is the version I allegedly twice reverted to. If you couldn't realize his agenda in the past, in this report it becomes plain to see. How can I in my first edit, on 8 April 07:39, "revert" to a version of 8 April 12:50? As far as I am aware I have no time machine as of yet. But seriously?! JCAla (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• More diffs:

First revert before discussion: Addition by JCAla: [55], Reverted and followed by discussion where JCAla's version didn't make consensus as of yet: [56]. No reply to bad faith accusations. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was March 14 and was a totally different sentence. JCAla (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd rather let an uninvolved admin deal with the report. My reasons are simple: first, I'd like to see how someone else considers the edit-revert-revert cycle, if they consider it a 1-rr violation or not – as this can be useful for me too in future – and second I don't want to give the impression that I'm "monopolising" the area, becoming the only admin who blocks people and protects pages. I don't want to give the impression I have become some sort of a "benevolent dictator"... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The admin comments on report are clear on this TLDR drama. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this report on Friday on the edit-warring noticeboard about POV pushing which is yet to be adjudged. I would appreciate if you could adjudicate it as you see fit, or failing that, advise me how to deal with this situation.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was dealt with by another admin; and I tend to agree with his suggestions. Happy editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me some diffs of the reason I got blocked? I'm not even sure of the behavior that led to it. LedRush (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I did just see the date of my block...LedRush (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I fear you were the victim of a practical joke... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Salvio giuliano a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, like your way of asking questions first so much! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Armbrust! Can't believe it's already been one year... O.o Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through List of Parkavakulam personalities, which is now empty as per my prediction on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have just semied the page, as IPs were undoing your edits... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about taking the IP to WP:3RRNB but I had already been there twice yesterday and in any case they'll just move along. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I have tried to give you the time to worry about something else... How about running for adminship, however? The tools do certainly come in handy from time to time... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my chances of success at RfA are slim-to-none. I've upset a lot of contributors in the India-related sphere & they will probably come out of the woodwork. I've also spent an inordinate amount of time at noticeboards such as ANI, AN, RSN, 3RRNB, DRN etc and while I think that I have always come out on the "right side" of the debate I have the impression that those appearances would count against me. Plus, I've done next to nothing at the old RfA favourites, such as NPP. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be so sure: I had made a couple of "enemies" editing the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and some of them opposed my RFA (though there were also "genuine" opposes); granted, your opposers would probably be more than mine were, because in the topic area you're involved in there are many more disruptive users, but don't forget that there also are a lot of people who consider you a very valuable contributor and I think that, in the end, you'd have a chance of passing. That said, I understand your reluctance to run for adminship: RfA can be incredibly stressful, almost painful even (even when they're successful, take Kudpung's for instance). However, if you ever want to run, you'll have my !vote. I'd even nominate you, but I've never done that before and I wouldn't know how to present a candidate (any candidate) in a way that encourages people to support him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will have a think about it. I am used to dealing with stressful issues here, although most of the time I just get on with things and pester the likes of you to sort the mess out! Somewhere there is a tool that shows how someone has done with CSDs/PRODs/AfDs: I'll try to find that because I seem to recall that some people place a fair amount of weight on those numbers (although, of course, you can do anything with statistics). I've certainly got plenty of experience handling disruption, although obviously I would not be able to use that much, if at all, in the India sphere due to prior involvement. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be one of these tools. And yes, a lot of people (including me, usually) consider deletion to be a very sensitive area and examine your track record there. However, you would not be one of the "metapedian" candidates (the ones who speedily delete pages, block vandals, etc.), but as a prolific content creator, so the focus would probably be on other areas... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if the eventual consequences are far removed from the original compromise. BabbaQ saying that if we start accepting requests for censorship on a regular basis that it will become a more common event isn't a slippery slope fallacy. The foundation does "censor" things via WP:OFFICE every now and then, but it's pretty limited in what they will do. The UK's speech laws are fairly draconian, not something we'd ever want to cater to. Replied here because I didn't want to insert a reply in the middle of the thread there and derail it. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it a logical fallacy, because this situation is rather peculiar: we have an article about a murder and a lot of the info it contains can be prejudicial to the defendant's right to a fair trial; and, what's more, after the trial, the article would be restored to its original form. To compare this to soon we will see other known people/companies/sites who have articles on Wikipedia contacting us and wanting information removed on different grounds, in my opinion, is fallacious as these cases have nothing to do with the original case, totally disregarding its distinguishing features, and it is only designed to elicit cries of "zOMG censorship, free speech, free speech!!!!1". This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with the right of a defendant not to have the jury pool tainted (any more, I'd say, since it probably already is). I think it would be a sign of maturity on Wikipedia's part if we acceded to this request. But I know that, unless the Foundation steps in, we will not. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a war zone, there are two keepers who quite simply refuse to allow any expansion ans there is constant edit warring. I added a POV tag as the article is not even remotely neutral and it was removed without even an accurate edit summary[57] Neither of the article owners have even commented on the section on the talk page[58] And I put the tag back today[59] and now some IP sock has come along and removed it again[60] Is it a violation of the 1RR restriction to restore it? There are obviouly issues with the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I don't think your first addition of the POV tag counted as a revert and so if you had reverted the IP, that would have counted as your first revert, in my opinion. But, even if that had been a violation, I would not have blocked. I don't want to reward possible sockpuppetry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, There seems to more vandalism on this page. A new user called User:Kashrut-vigilante has popped up and reverted to edits made by banned users Koshervigilante, Kashrus-vigilante and Applesandhonee. This is also a single purpose account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kashrut-vigilante . This user has removed all sources provided and reverted this entry back to stub status adding the stub tags. The quality of this article was upgraded adding factual information and sources only to have him copy and paste his irrelevant and often derogatory comments ruining the article. This is the fourth time he has changed his user once spamming my user maned and numerous IP edits. Thanks Applesandhoney (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed a block-evading sock. And now we wait for the next one... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. I ran a checkuser and found ten more socks; all indeffed as well. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding all of them. This would have saved many attacks. At least for the next 4 days until he opens more accounts. Applesandhoney (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]