Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages

Certified pages

General
Use of administrator privileges

Noticeboard archives



Contents

Wikipediocracy doxxing[edit]

Wikipediocracy doxxed a couple users, including myself (though who I am is no secret) and a minor. REDACTED NAMES PER ADMIN REQUEST. I'm not sure if they're Wikipedia editors, but if they are, their actions are wholly unacceptable. Is there any way to find out if these folks are Wikipedia editors? If so, I'd like to see action taken against them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of them are current Wikipedia users. The Wikipediocracy is an external website not under the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia in any manner. More often than not though, as in this situation, their editorial 100% nails it, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, given that you've insulted everyone who was editing that article and trying to include information about the issue as misogynists, I'm not terribly surprised you agree with them. But your ill behavior is not at issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry that misogynists feel insulted. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
you shouldn't be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, one other thing we have in common is that, unlike the other users involved in the editing of those pages, we both specifically warned @NorthBySouthBaranof: about his/her behavior. Not sure if it is related. Do you know who these people are, North? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I would warn you about your behavior in attempting to smear living people on the encyclopedia, but that's already been done numerous times by administrators who have had to repeatedly revision-delete your scurrilous nonsense about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Given your penchant for making unfounded accusations about them, I'm not surprised that you're making unfounded insinuations about me. The answer is no, by the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty serious allegation, or at least implication. You are understandably upset about what happened, but maybe step back and think about what you are saying, and reserve your anger for the four individuals at Wikipediocracy, one of whom is already indef blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know (or care) who the other three are, but if any of them are still active editors here, I'd support blocks for them. The fact that we cannot regulate what happens at other websites does not mean that we have to put up with the consequences of those happenings, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually not upset, more... grimly amused? I mean, I've never been doxxed before. Its like a rite of passage! People really hate me! Rather than the casual hatred they reserved for me in the past. I suppose I am somewhat annoyed at them on the other user's behalf, because, well, I'm an adult and used to such people on the internet, but they're a potentially vulnerable minority minor who now has their picture posted for the world to see in conjunction with their user name and some other personal information which could potentially lead to identification in real life (as opposed to the Internet, though it becomes more and more real every day, I suppose). I apologize for the implication; I just noticed it off-handedly while browsing user talk pages of people who were involved, in case the folk in question were users who had been on the page. Some people list their real life names on their Wikipedia profiles, or link to where they work or whatever. I'm glad to hear you weren't involved, North; thanks for your input, and I'm sorry I came off as accusatory. I have noticed you have been more civil recently, and I appreciate that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
On this whole bit, since I am one of the individuals who was supposedly 'doxxed' in this article. It's not all that surprising that people--instead of wishing to conflate or actually dissent with actual arguments, have to refer to finding all the personal information about it. It's a bit weird of an obsession, honestly. I am a real person, you can talk to me, I'm not some robot being inputted some commands by some 'higher up' person, so why wouldn't they fight with an actual idea, a post on my talk page, 'Why did you do X' or 'Y' or 'Z' on this page, and get my real thoughts on it. Instead, they have to use bully tactics, doxxing me and posting information about me. That said, it's obviously more safe for me to not comment about the validity of the information posted, for my safety of course. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We can certainly block them here if they aren't already blocked, but unless someone is going to propose a specific on-wiki action, we should close this thread. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Then I propose that we block the ones who aren't already blocked, and then close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That was all the action I could really expect/hope for. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't get the logic of people who do stuff like this. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow. People write My Little Pony fiction? Drmies (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Lots of them. FIMFiction has north of a billion (yes, with a b) words of pony fanfiction on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A link to some explanation of what the hell you all mean by "doxxing" would be helpful for those unfamiliar with this neologism. See Doxing. Otherwise we might assume it was related to "becoming a Doxy:" Floozy, prostitute, mistress. Edison (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Don't be such a luddite, Edison, with your old-fashioned "dictionary" full of dead, stupid words. Besides, you're wrong: a "doxy" is clearly a more economical version of User:Roxy the dog, with some metathesis or sumpin' thrown in for good measure. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Isn't a doxy a little winged creature that Mrs. Weasley was cleaning out of Sirius' house? Btw, @Tryptofish:, you reverted my attempt to wrap this up nicely, so care to explain what you hope to accomplish by keeping this open? Tarc (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I trust that is no longer a serious question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Why isn't it a serious question? What administrative action are you seeking here? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, it's obvious to me. Take a look at my 23:26 comment. If you wanted to wrap it up, I wonder why you have continued to comment afterwards, and in any case, you were more than a wee bit "involved". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the editors involved in the GamerGate article dispute, Tarc, apparently commented this doxxing article in an edit summary when reverting one of the editors allegedly doxxed: "rv: Good for you to get together some editors who apparently squeezed a non-existent thing out of non-existent sources. It doesn't make t any more real, and it looks like outside eyes are finally getting in on this." I can't interpret that other than an endorsement or approval of the doxxing. Are these kind of shots at the editors mentioned in the article acceptable? --Pudeo' 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he's just talking about other editors looking at the article; people often refer to getting "other eyes" on stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Though it should be noted that Tarc deliberately said (On Wikipediocracy, with the same name) I had fun on Wikipediocracy for awhile pretending to be a black conservative. Can’t really say why or when it started, it just kind of came about during some discussion or other, that it’d be fun to be something else and argue as if that was important. So I rolled with it. β€œAs a black man…” can be quite an argument-buster if wielded correctly.
We can smell our own; Tutelary is complexly, Grade-A full of shit.
As for the rest of the rabble at the Zoe Quinn and related articles, it’s a continuation of the original harassment she endured; the overlap of white, single 18-35 yr olds who are both gamers and Wikipedians is sizable. Since Tarc is a Wikipedia editor, can anything be done about this comment? Tutelary (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that that wasn't someone who used Tarc's name to get him into trouble on Wikipedia? If we rely on Wikipediocracy comments to block Wikipedia users then Reddit comments are grounds for blocking as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that someone made a point about this by imposing as me on Wikipediocracy and commenting about my blocks, and even calling Drmies a 'nutjob' and such and complaining about an apparent 'feminist dominance' on here. This is growing to be quick harassment, only thing that's missing is the harassing phone calls. Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem with the anonymous comment section of a blog; anyone can be anyone, identity is not provable. Perhaps this will be one of those proverbial "teachable moments", and going forward you will be less dismissive of the harassment endured by Quinn, Sarkeesian, et al... Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I call BS. Every intentional violation of BLP is an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. Ask around about what Qworty was doing: it was harassment. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
... and Qworty's little game was exposed by Wikipediocracy and its so-called "doxxing," I remind everyone. Then Qworty acknowledged the accuracy of this on-wiki and only then was the community capable of doing anything. So-called doxxing has its place and Wikipediocracy doesn't engage in it either frequently or lightly. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Evidence suggests, TD, that you were outed because you attracted attention by behaving badly in public and by leaving a trail which made it easy to tie your behavior, good or bad, into a single identity with a real-world name. That's your fault, and in the real world, pointing over at Wikipediocracy and bellowing "they outed me!" is either a sign that you don't really care that they did that, or an act of colossal stupidity. Either way, the revenge you seek here is a childishness which should be disregarded in favor of a consideration of your sins at the articles in question, where you apparently are pursuing some sort of vendetta. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously blaming him for getting doxed? Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why, yes, I am. People who don't act like that don't motivate others to find out why they are acting that way, and those who are so promiscuous with their identity do not find such curiosity so easily satisfied. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting moral quandary, isn't it? On the one hand, WP:OUTING is strongly forbidden by site policy, and it causes people significant distress. Some "outings" appear to have served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer. On the other hand, Wikipediocracy contributors have also successfully identified several cases of serious abuse of Wikipedia, where repellent behavior would have continued indefinitely if not for Wikipediocracy's "outing" (the cases I have in mind are those of Qworty (talk Β· contribs) and Little green rosetta (talk Β· contribs), although the latter seems to be active again now with an alternate account). We actually owe Wikipediocracy a debt of gratitude for calling attention to those cases, because these "outings" served a constructive purpose and likely reduced the real-life harm these individuals had caused. So... like most real-life ethical questions, it's not as black-and-white as one would like to believe. MastCell Talk 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone who got doxxed for "behaving badly" by having opinions about BLPs, you can fuck right off with that. The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is a response to me (based on the indenting, I'm guessing it's not), but in any case I'd put your "outing" firmly in the category of "served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer." I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. MastCell Talk 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It was not directed at you. I was torn between just indenting for threading or pinging, but I figured it was less justifiable to "ping" someone and tell them to fuck off than it would be to just say it. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
To respond to your comments that it isn't always black and white, that is true but in a really unpelasant way. To the person doing the doxxing, it's often completely black and white. Back in the day BLP apostasy was exactly that in the eyes of folks at WR and other places. BLPs were a struggle for the heart of the project and represented a real potential damage to humans based on anonymous work. We can look at them and say that this manichean view was unfounded, but they don't feel that way. The folks at Wikipediocracy are likewise concerned over sexism and harassment getting "justified" in the encyclopedia. Their concern "looks" better to us (after all, the gamer gate stuff is disgusting, but that's a story for another time), so we might be more inclined to view the outing as a necessary journalistic evil. But I don't think we need to dig too far into the piece to see that characterization as strained. The run down on TD from that article is basically "look at this fucking loser", which is par for the course with outing articles. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's disappointing that nothing besides a lot of talk is going to come of this, but "The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar." I couldn't put it any better than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that none of you are meant to be speechifying in relation to BLPs, either in articles or talkpages, then chilling of such speech would seem to be a good thing and in accordance with this site's principles. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@John lilburne: I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Protonk (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPN is that-a-way. Doxxing people is not the way to correct BLP problems. In fact, the spirit of WP:BLP is that living persons should be treated with respect, and even Wikipedia editors are living persons. meta:Privacy is another of this site's principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
When it comes to BLPs no one should be engaging in any form of agenda pushing. The talk page of Quinn is an object lesson in agenda pushing, attempts to get inappropriate sources accepted, character assassination, and wearisome arguing. Such speech has, according to the rules, no place here. If no one here will get the house in order and freeze it out don't complain when outside forces do the job for you all. John lilburne (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@John lilburne: I was outed for being an admin and having the "wrong" opinion on wikipedia BLP policy and expressing that opinion in RfCs and on project talk pages. Not discussing subjects or whatever else. My point above was about the entirely bullshit notion that getting doxxed by some random person with an axe to grind is karmic punishment for "bad" behavior. If it is, it is only so accidentally. The main function is to make the outed person look small and feel vulnerable. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act. It sounds like your situation was done to you out of vengefulness and spite, which isn't cool at all, and I sympathize if you were doing something good here. There are other situations, e.g. Qworty, where the revelation of an editor's identity was a good thing, as it unmasked some rather nefarious deeds. The right to privacy here isn't quite the same as a right to anonymity. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
>Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act.
It kind of is. If you have a specific criticism on someone, make that criticism. But doxxing is dumping a huge amount of info for the purposes of humiliation or intimidation. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it kind of isn't. Per my example above, Qworty was rightly shamed and driven from the project. That was about a textbook example of "good doxxing" as one can find. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what Qworty was, but if he was being criticized for a specific set of behaviors that's not doxxing. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that it is my contention that anyone editing BLP content ought not to be anonymous, that at the very least they should have there contact details held on file by the WMF I'm hardly going to be sympathetic about the doxxing of an admin. Sometimes it might be karmic punishment, sometimes revenge, sometimes simply for the LOLZ, it makes no difference. People put controversial things online under their own name all the time without any ill consequences. You deal with any harassment as it happens and the WMF should protect those that are targeted, but having the RL identity of a WP administrator or participant in BLPs isn't harrassment. You are relying on security by obscurity, that is really the wrong way of doing it. Al most all of you can be doxxed by a determined set of people. John lilburne (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mangoe:: The real concern with it is A) it is against the rules, B) chilling effects, and C) that they doxxed someone else who, according to them, was underaged and (possibly) transgendered. As I noted, I don't actually care that they doxxed me in the abstract, but if they were Wikipedia users who were engaging in conversation with me on the article (they weren't) and they wrote an outside hit piece on me, that would obviously be an issue, no? Especially if they were willing to do it against people who, you know, did care. The allegations in the article were false in any event; indeed, it was noted that several of the revdels were done in error, because they were, in fact, sourced and thus probably weren't necessary. A couple of them were probably necessary, but they were not done maliciously, and we discussed it on the talk page. The rest of their accusations were... what, exactly? That I was fat and jealous of Zoe Quinn, despite not even working on video game development? Given that the discussions can be seen over on the talk pages for Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, you should really look there to see whether they're, well, just plain old wrong. As they are. They're angry more or less because their POV is that it is all sexist misogyny; they are fanatics. The reality is that the reliable sources paint a much more complicated picture, with claims of misogyny being only one side of the story - the other side being that it is about something else. Actually, it is really about five or six different stories at this point, because the reality is that more or less Zoe Quinn was the ignition point for a lot of pre-existing conflicts in the gaming community, regarding corruption, nepotism, misogyny, the so-called "social justice warriors", insulting gamers, general toxicity of the community, and several other things. It is kind of stupid. But, well, I edit stuff about current events sometimes. It just so happens that this is a particularly dumb one which ended up becoming huge thanks to early attempts at censorship causing the Streisand Effect. At this point, it is being noted by the Taiwanese press as being worrisome because they're afraid that if people don't make nice by the holiday season, it might negatively affect console sales because people will see the nastiness and choose not to buy consoles (whose components are sourced in Taiwan), and instead buy tablets (which are mostly made in China). All this, over a dumb fight on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipediocracy blog piece that gave rise to this ANI thread. I'm no fan of insults to women's dignity, and I think that a lot of what is in the piece does a positive service (as indeed many of the blog pieces there do, in my opinion, because anything as big as Wikipedia can do with some skeptical watching). However, I think a useful thought experiment is to read the piece while mentally deleting all of the actual naming of editors. Go ahead, say someone is such-and-such years old, and they previously claimed to be such-and-such a gender, and so forth – but just leave out the personally identifying information. In terms of investigative journalism, the beneficial effect would have been exactly the same. But the addition of actually identifying private individuals (I wonder if someone could sue Wikipediocracy for defamation?) just makes it look like 4chan. Maybe the people at Wikipediocracy think that they are big impressive defenders of integrity who put Wikipedia's house in order, but to me the naming just makes them look like a couple of teenage bullies. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole conversation almost makes me glad I didn't know better than to use my real name when registered 8 years ago, instead of User:MsSmartyPants or something appropriate. Of course it also makes me wonder what to do when such information is revealed and an editor is being disruptive or POV pushing to the max. I guess nothing, except some how or other let them know that you know? Hmmmmm... Face-smile.svg Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pudeo?[edit]

Um, regarding this edit, which some unknown "Pudeo" decided to harp on...you have it wrong. "outside eyes are finally getting in on this" referred to other Wikipedians who had never been a part of older discussions at 2014 Isla Vista killings, not anyone off-site. It has nothing to do with "doxxing", and doesn't even have a connection to the Gamergate stuff we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Titanium Dragon already corrected me on that. And heh, don't be so confused if "unknown" editors comment here - that's the reason why issues are posted to ANI in the first place. --Pudeo' 14:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A question[edit]

If such an issue reveals that a Wikipedia user, through looking at their contributions to an external site, has a conflict of interest or other viewpoint that makes them incompatible with editing certain Wikipedia articles, is that sufficient reason to take action here? I'm not entirely sure if this has occurred before, but I'm sure it probably has. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

you're not sure but you're sure? Writ Keeper βš‡β™” 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted. Typing at the same time as being harassed by daughter#1 to help with her Maths homework. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to ping/link and dredge up old drama, but yea, a year or so ago, Arbcom banned a user for edits made to Encyclopedia Dramatica regarding another Wikipedian. BTW, file an ANI on your kid for harassment, they'll send her to bed without supper. (in case there'a any confusion, yes, that is a joke) Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In 2011, a user was indef blocked for canvassing on the men's rights site antimisandry.com and for using WP:Socks. The SPI was inconclusive but the off-wiki canvassing was too obvious to ignore. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Much as this sort of thing makes me uncomfortable, if the allegations that certain editors are pursuing an agenda against a BLP subject are true (I haven't evaluated the allegations beyond skimming the WO blog post), then I would say we most certainly should take action here. Most of us are here to build a neutral reference work. We get very hot under the collar about "paid editing" or "paid advocacy" but the corporate spammers are usually quite easy to spot and block. It seems to me that we should get much hotter under the collar about subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality, especially when it is directed at subjects who are real people whose lives and personal and professional reputations could be affected by a slanted Wikipedia article. Or do we have to wait for another Seigenthaler incident and a knee-jerk reaction to adverse publicity? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
While that sounds wonderful, if we really go after all the subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality in addition to the more obvious examples then there will be few editors left to contribute to this site.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be a start to restrict BLP editing to editors who have demonstrated that they can edit biographies responsibly. (This could be a separate user right.) As it is, Wikipedia is throwing BLPs to the vultures to pick and fight over. Andreas JN466 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we take a binding vote on this right now? Also, could WP administrators please start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy? In my eight years here I don't think I've ever seen ad admin step up and openly enforce that policy. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Andreas, could that BLP user right be proposed somewhere? We could extend it to all BLPs (though it would stop mistakes from being fixed, including by the subject), or use it as a new layer of protection for any BLP deemed problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Found your proposal on the mailing list, March 2011. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an excellent idea. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
An intriguing idea. How does someone demonstrate that they can edit biographies responsibly when they're not allowed to edit them until they've demonstrated it? GoldenRing (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Submission of responsibly written and appropriately sourced biographies through AfC, for example, or solid research contributions to BLP talk pages. Andreas JN466 12:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, it still smells a lot like the established BLP club marking their turf. How is this consistent with the third pillar? GoldenRing (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not about marking turf; it's about making use of the flexibility demanded by the fifth pillar in order not to have fucked-up biographies that make a mockery of the second pillar and aren't consistent with anything in the Foundation's charitable mission. Andreas JN466 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You can get in trouble for your behavior off-site, and I think that's absolutely okay. And if you admit to being paid or whatever to edit articles, or otherwise engaging in behavior against the rules, using off-site posting as evidence is perfectly acceptable. That being said, we should not be barring people from articles simply because they have some sort of point of view; editors are allowed to have points of view. You have points of view, I have points of view, we all have points of view. That's fine. What is a problem is when it affects Wikipedia. The reality is that the people most likely to edit articles are people who are most interested in them, which is going to inevitably and invariably mean that they have a point of view on them. The problem comes when they're unable to act as responsible editors of Wikipedia. As long as they are WP:CIVIL, maintain a WP:NPOV in the articles (remember, editors can have points of view, but articles cannot), and otherwise behave within the rules, there's no reason to ban them. In any case, it would benefit people for making false aliases for the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia to make it impossible to trace back their opinions and thus result in such bans, which is highly undesirable - having traceability is both useful and worthwhile. Frankly, if you conduct yourself poorly on Wikipedia and you have an obvious point of view, we can deal with it easily enough - and indeed, more easily than if we institute such a thing.

It also would encourage people to write attack pieces like this if they were "rewarded" by getting revenge on people they didn't like, which would be extremely bad. You don't want to encourage negative behavior.

The fact that Tarc commented on that article approvingly, for instance, should not be grounds for banning him from editing those articles - but repeatedly calling people misogynists on the talk page and elsewhere would warrant action, because at that point, he'd be breaking actual rules (namely, against civility on Wikipedia). I don't care if he is pro-social justice, and neither should anyone else; the problem comes when it results in edit wars, incivility, excessive POV pushing, ect. which are all actions on Wikipedia.

We have rules against outing people and suchlike for a reason, and we definitely should not encourage people to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When editors actively push an agenda that could reasonably be construed as misogynistic, in tone or intent, said editors do not get to hide behind civility shields, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of anyone's agenda, WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars and those who violate it are violating policy, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What if an editor admits to hacking into others computers? I'd be wary opening links posted by an editor like that, I think it puts other Wikipedia editors at risk --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If someone is admitting to engaging in illegal activity, at that point the police should be involved and I would recommend contacting the police/FBI/whatever agency is relevant in whatever country the user is from. People who post malicious/harmful links on Wikipedia tend to get banned rather quickly; reporting such incidents to admins is very important. Incidentally, if you are referring to the user who I think you're referring to with this, you can relax; the person who claims to be a hacker who uses the same username on various messageboards started using it back in 2007, while the Wikipedia user used a different handle until 2014, and they aren't the same gender; they're almost certainly different people, especially given the Wikipedia user's supposed age. A lot of people happen to have the same usernames on the internet; I may be the most prominent Titanium Dragon, for instance, but Titanium-Dragon (with the hyphen) on tumblr is not me, and there is a WoW clan which uses my name which I am unrelated to, having never even played the game. I've actually spoken to several folks who use my name over the years, making jokes with them about who the real one was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Your name consists of two common words, however. When someone's shared handle consists of a non-English word and exactly the same 3-digit number, and they have clearly the same interests (right down to individual people) on more than one website, then I can think we can pretty much assume they're the same person. Not to mention there has been further links posted off-wiki, which I won't repeat but are 100% convincing. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite:: While I've been ignoring this because the issue has been resolved (and because I've been busy doing other, much more enjoyable things than argue with folks on Wikipedia), I will note that someone sent me a private message on Twitter which more or less confirms that said user is the same person. However, it also confirms that they're telling the truth on their profile; they identify as female, and have done so elsewhere since as of at least March of this year, using the same name and everything. As long as they're behaving themselves on Wikipedia, I don't really care who they "really are" and what they self identify as. If someone says that they're a lobster, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't try and edit all the articles about seafood to complain about the terrors of cooking their people alive and try to put seafood boil into Category:Genocide. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're sure of that? [1] --81.129.126.66 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A new game and a suggestion[edit]

Anyone want to guess who User:PseudoSomething is? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know it's not difficult. Can I suggest, apart from the full protection and RD2 that is covering those four articles now, we simply indef any "new" editor who heads straight for those articles and starts with the misogynistic crap. There's only two possible reasons for it; they're a sock of another editor, or they're a meatpuppet. In neither case do I see that we're losing anything here. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Who am I supposed to be? Honestly? This is the first time I have ever made an account on Wikipedia. That is why I haven't even tried to touch the edit button on an article. I am trying to speak on behalf of the GG side because of a lot of the crap that has been said about us. β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk β€’ contribs) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Familiarity with Wikipedia (i.e. linking, indenting, reliable sources) whilst claiming you don't really know how it works, and then heading straight for another editor with the same criticisms as other accounts. Oh, and a user page that says "I'm New". Please don't take us to be stupid people. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I still have no idea who you think I am. I link to things because you kinda need proof behind it. I indent because I see everyone else doing it, and you add 1 : on each time you want to post under someone. Its just formatting, and every site has different formatting. Why should I post if I am going to fuck up the formatting of a ton of other people? I said my say to Tarc because he was pushing a biased POV and North (I think that is their name), because of my concerns. I put "I am New" in my user profile because I thought you needed to have that made for you to have a talk page, in case anyone needed to post something on there. Your calling me out for studying the formatting of the site before posting, for linking proof behind what I say, and for something I made to try to make sure I am within the confides of communications. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Just another sock/meatpuppet arrived to try to ram the "angry gamer POV" into the articles in question, showing up with an instant familiarity with both the Wikipedia and who's who in discussions that precede his alleged "new" arrival. WP:RBI and keep an eye out for the next one. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
So far, yall have called me a misogynist, a sockpuppet/meatpuppet (I dont even know what the hell a meat pupper is), have said my learning the protocols of Wikipedia before posting were bad, I havent even edited an article and didn't plan on it, and your trying to silence me. Wikipedia can do IP's right? Since you would only find this account on my home IP. Is this how all Wikipedia users are, or just a minority? I would think a minority, because the admin on the GamerGate page actually talked to me last night (or was it the night before), and listened to my say on things. β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk β€’ contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Meatpuppet: (noun). A person or persons canvassed offsite in an attempt to sway consensus in the meatpuppeteer's favor. Etymology: a sockpuppet made of meat. G S Palmer (talk β€’ contribs) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What, you knew what all these things about Wikipedia were straight away (to which we can add "pushing a biased POV" and a clear knowledge of Checkuser), but you didn't know what a meatpuppet was? That's poor research. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I knew what a biased POV is because I talked about biased POV when others try to explain about GamerGate without providing the right info. Its a Point of View that is biased. What is wrong with that? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I will note that while PS's contributions are likely from the push from outside WP to try to balance the article (eg a bit of meatpuppetry), they have not tried to edit war , haven't put BLP in the talk page, and are provided some food for thought when the article gets unlocked, which I'm happy to listen to and consider. Yes, some of the behavior is consistent with socks but without other evidence and signs of disruption, we can't do much either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping Masem, I felt incredibly alarmed when this happened and didn't know what to do, honestly. I am trying to see how I can help balance the article, and I didn't even want to edit the article because of me being on the other side. So thank you for helping, it kinda calmed my nerves on this whole thing. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Holy shit guys, this is the reason why Wikipedia becomes a closed garden of old boys and can't get new editors. Am I now supposed to roll my eyes every time the Wikipedia Signpost complains that new editor statistics are going the wrong way? The moment someone new comes along to a controversial topic that's obviously making internet headlines, people are quick to jump on them, use disparaging epithets like "angry gamer" (thanks Tarc), and accuse them of being the neckbeard nazis. Assume good faith, you have no idea whether or not they are a genuine editor or an agenda troll; if they really are new, lead them to the right path (you guys were once newcomers to Wikipedia as well, stop pretending you guys were born with the knowledge of how Wikipedia works), and if they really are trolls, then give them enough rope to let them hang themselves. What I'm seeing here is sickening. --benlisquareTβ€’Cβ€’E 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, AGF only goes so far. When a brand new editor comes to a - let's face it - in the scheme of things fairly obscure article, displays obvious knowledge of Wikipedia, and takes up a theme of righting great wrongs exactly where another editor hsas left it - to the point of attacking exactly the same people for exactly the same things - then you have to say, either this is the same person, or there is meatpuppetry going on. There is AGF, and then there is naivete. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't call me naΓ―ve, and don't spin the situation to make it look like what people here are doing is completely justified. The #GamerGate hashtag was the top trending tag on Twitter for a significant period of time, until it was dwarfed by the #Destiny hashtag for a day (albeit still remaining active, and still has been ever since Adam Baldwin started the trend). Everyone interested in videogames and their dog knows about GamerGate, it's hardly a niche topic. For a scandal of proportions like this, it's a no brainer that people with opinions will come to Wikipedia, create new accounts, and make posts on the talk page about their opinions on the matter. People are using the boogeyman tactic because it's a convenient one. AGF is your responsibility, as a member of this community. --benlisquareTβ€’Cβ€’E 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
And those people will immediately pick one of the other contributing editors out (who hasn't actually contributed since their account was created) and start attacking them in exactly the same way as previous accounts, will they? OK then, that's clearly a total coincidence. Silly me. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you benlisquare. I really came to try to have the voice of the other side heard because it was a controversial issue, but I didn't even think of editing the article because I am on the other side of the topic. I felt extremely alarmed and kinda felt like crap since I was being told I was a misogynist, sock puppet, and meat puppet days after I created an account, the mocking from them didn't help either. I gonna do my best to get up on the WP guidelines though and see what I can do. Thank you. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, between the actual doxxing, and the reporting of said doxxing, there might be a bunch of newbies on the article. So try not to WP:BITE the newbies. They're very likely to perceive it as censorship/harassment, seeing as that is the mentality they're likely coming from. If they don't understand stuff, be gentle. Dunno about this particular user, but people should try to be nice in general. Incidentally, the idea of the point of view and the neutral point of view being important are actually fairly well understood by many random folks on the internet who are completely unrelated to Wikipedia; they teach about it in school in the US. Indeed, one of the reasons that many of the gamers are so upset is precisely because they feel that many articles written by the gaming press do not adopt a neutral point of view. Just an FYI; familiarity with the NPOV is hardly surprising amongst this bunch. We may also see an influx of SJW types, who should be treated the same way as we treat the gamers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Titanium. I actually came before the doxxing, but wanted to make my voice heard about the other side, I didn't even think of editing the article. Your right though, Bias was just easily seen, and it was happening in the article. I didn't even want to edit it because I have bias on the other spectrum. I just wanted to provide the counter point of view.PseudoSomething (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose we site-ban Tutelary, Titanium Dragon and anyone else trying to smear the defamation of Quinn over this encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 11:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Add PseudoSomething to that list. I've just read through Talk:GamerGate. How much more time of genuine encyclopedia-builders is going to be consumed by these POV-pushers? --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose that you stop proposing site bans for people who have committed the crime of commenting on a talk page. β€”Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You say that like I propose site bans all the time. I'm pretty sure it's the second time in 8 years I've ever made such a proposal. And I'm proposing they be banned because they're here trying to defame one of our BLP subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd oppose such draconian bans. You're essentially silencing anyone who wishes to question the current state of the article, under the guise of "defamation". Exactly what defaming posts have these people made on the talk page? Above, there have been allegations by Black Kite that these users spew, quote, "misogynistic crap". Where exactly is this misogynistic crap on the talk page? I don't see it. I haven't seen any hate speech against women at all by these individuals; sure, they may have opinions that differ from other people, but that is not misogyny. I'd like to see you directly address and explain exactly what part of these editors' posts are so defamatory. --benlisquareTβ€’Cβ€’E 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Not their defamation, the defamation and invasion of privacy that is the the root of this piece of misogynistic shit. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"misogynistic shit" - again, you're throwing buzzwords at me, instead of explaining your position properly. What words have these editors said that justify a ban? Where have women been attacked? These editors are here because they believe that the page is imbalanced, and are trying to tell their personal opinions on the matter. Discussion is the core aspect of any constructive negotiation, you need to understand what they think while they need to understand what you think. Conveniently silencing them instead of addressing their points and refuting them is one of the most underhanded things you can do. Picture this: You are debating with an Armenian genocide denialist. Would you rather have a rational discussion with him, addressing each others' points, or would you prefer that he screams "AMERICAN IMPERIALIST DOG! TURKISH HISTORY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!" at you over and over again? Because that is exactly what's going on here. --benlisquareTβ€’Cβ€’E 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
There is zero problem if the editors have a clear agenda, one that if they spelled it out, would be completely against BLP, but their behavior on wiki is all within the lines of BLP and they are not being disruptive or the like. If they are trying to back up what they think personally with claims from usable RS that support part of what they think and avoid delving into FRINGE, what is wrong with that? So far, save for a few IPs that were dealth with quickly, while I can easily read who is on what side and point out things we have to be careful with, there's no statements on the talk page against BLP, nor anyone being disruptive. AGF has to apply unless there's clearer evidence of a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean like restoring BLP violations on the Anita Sarkeesian page and IP gossip at Talk:Zoe Quinn or adding hearsay about the suicide of Amanda Todd or defending statements like this one about Amanda Filipacchi? I'm not sure if you consider the Journal of New Male Studies for Michael Kimmel's BLP or the ex-boyfriend's blog for Zoe Quinn's BLP "usable" sources, but Tutelary doesn't consider the sources unusable in those BLP contexts just because they're biased. Or how about the Men's Rights Agency? And that's not taking the information about the editor into consideration that would get me accused of "outing" them. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I support a siteban for Tutelary per NOTHERE (in fact I was hoping the thread above would produce a consensus as to whether the off-wiki evidence can be used to justify a block). At most, I'd support a page/topic ban for Titanium Dragon because he seems to have an interest n contribution to Wikipedia beyond their slightly unhealthy fixation on this topic (though asking them to walk away voluntarily might have the same effect). I'm inclined to AGF (for now) on PseudoSomething (unless somebody wants to present more evidence), and I suggest we semi-protect all the pages (including talk pages) involved until this nonsense dies down an that admins closely monitor them and be prepared to sanction any editor who does not conduct themselves appropriately on those pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Talk pages should never be semi-protected if the mainspace article is protected. A good faith IP editor wants to fix a spelling error, but can't use {{edit semi-protected}}. What then? Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to, not your secret club of elite brothers. The administrative team is more than capable enough in dealing with troublemakers should they pop their heads out of the woodwork, blocking drive-by IP offenders who post any BLP-violating material on the relevant pages should be effective enough. --benlisquareTβ€’Cβ€’E 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • My secret club of elite brothers? If I was running a secret club of elite brothers, I'd have one of my secret elite brothers secretly and elitely remove you from the secret, elite club and secretly and elitely oversight that comment so that I could secretly and elitely get my way. Oh, and they'd go to WP:RFED to ask a member of the secret club of elite brothers to secretly and elitely make the edit for them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at both Tutelary's and Titanium Dragon's long-term edit history, they are not at all limited to this topic and especially in the case of Titanium Dragon I can't see he has even edited this topic before. Calling that an "unhealthy fixation" is simply false and incivil. I might add that one editor, who was in the other POV camp than Tutelary, did almost 500 edits related to Zoe Quinn/GamerGate in a few days. You're not calling him NOTHERE and fixated because...? It is also a bit nasty that doxxing is not taken with due seriousness and the thread is tried to turn into a boomerang just because you seem to personally disagree with their position in a content dispute. Get a grip, HJ Mitchell. --Pudeo' 15:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What makes you think I gave a flying fuck about anyone's position in a content dispute? Editors should conduct themselves properly, both with regard to other editors and with regard to the subjects of articles, and if they don't, I have no qualms about sanctioning them. Oh, and in the case of Tutelary, pretending to be somebody else so you can push your POV is despicable and (in my opinion) ample grounds for a siteban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have -not- impersonated anyone else, my name is Danielle and I am a woman, and you referring to me by male pronouns is especially offensive given that the only institution to express that view is Wikipediocracy, the institution which doxed me. Please don't do it again. Oh, and how is expressing a different opinion 'POV pushing'? Do you have any on-site proof of this at all? Period? Tutelary (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Where have I referred to you using male pronouns? If I have, it was unintentionalβ€”I try to make a point of using gender-neutral pronouns except where I know somebody has a preference. As to "on-site proof", that is precisely the point of this discussion, isn't it? If there was sufficient on-wiki evidence, you'd be indef'd right now; we're currently discussing whether the off-wiki evidence is sufficient presents grounds to ban you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account benlinsquare's sage advice, I'll now support the very wise HJ Mitchell's more modest suggestion (minus the talk page semi-protection, per benlinsquare, again). --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 14:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're going to support site banning me? If anything other than doxxing me and harassing me, what did the Wikipediocracy state? They looked into where I edited the most. That's -nothing- in support of a sanction. I'm sure that a good amount of people have tons of edits to Barrack Obama's article, yet unless there is any problems with those edits, they should absolutely not be sanctioned for merely being active on those pages. Expressing a different opinion than other editors on an article/talk page is also not a crime that is punishable by death. Obvious oppose by me. Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that you posting on the hacking forum? What is the risk that you might hack other editors here and steal their bank details in that case? --109.148.125.244 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary[edit]

  • Given the extremely convincing evidence posted elsewhere, Tutelary needs, at the very least, a topic ban from any BLP. Frankly a site ban would be easier, but this is a minimum. I do not see an urgent issue with Titanium Dragon at this moment - they have moved away from the problems which led to their previous edits being rev-deleted. If you respond to this with a Support, please identify your preferred sanction. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)m
What is the 'extremely convincing evidence' which you seem to have not posted? There needs to be extremely convincing evidence to justify sanctions against me, and I have not seen a single argument presented or a single set of diffs that I am disruptive in any way shape or form. There needs to be -evidence- and there is an extreme lack there of to justify sanctions. Obvious oppose. Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support BLP ban with urging to edit somewhere less controversial. KonveyorBelt 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support siteban/indefinite block (as above). If and only if that's not possible, I'd support a BLP ban, though it's woefully inadequate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose What an awesome bandwagon. Something that is posted "elsewhere" but is not linked to from here cannot be used as justification here. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose insufficient evidence, has a very short block log (one short block that was good-faith unblocked). Just because someone has edited BLP articles and some of that information has been removed on BLP grounds (you know many living persons are controversial, right?) there's no reason and even so there is no pattern here. It is also disturbing that somehow this ANI thread (that wasn't even started by Tutelary) has become an absurd boomerang with no protection for those who were the targets of the doxxing, even using the doxxing article alleged information for borderline-harrassment. Exactly what related to GamerGate would warrant the topic here? How is this vote related to this ANI thread? --Pudeo' 19:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. Knowing full well that this will probably only mean they'll be back with another account tomorrow. (Will support BLP topic ban if and only if site ban does not pass.) Andreas JN466 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What evidence or implications there are that this user has been involved in sockpuppeting or would do so? --Pudeo' 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Anything to pry one of the misogynist warriors away from the battleground is a good move, as this user is clearly here to see that their anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian, etc... point-of-view is represented in their respective WP:BLP]]s. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    "One of the misogynist warriors"? You have been already asked to remain civil in this ANI thread by Titanium Dragon and by Drmies but now you have moved into direct personal attacks. Perhaps it's you who needs a cooldown. --Pudeo' 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This Drmies sees no personal attack here. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Your first diff was posted by an IP, not by me and the ANI was to make sure that the administrator was within his right to remove the section, and I closed it myself because it ultimately was. I don't see how that is ultimately disruptive to the project and deserving an indefinite BLP topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Defamatory material was removed on BLP grounds and you chose to restore it, which is no different from adding it yourself. That you had to take it to ANI rather than read WP:BLP is disruption to the project. Woodroar (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This is rather weak. Coming to ANI for clarification and accepting the decision should not be considered disruption. If it were, any administrative action review which gets upheld would be considered disruption and would lead to sanctions for the person bringing up the review. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
ANI shouldn't be a "is this really policy?" Get Out of Jail Free card, though it often works as a final reminder for editors willing to change. That ANI was in July. Restoring the defamatory material was in August. This is now a recurring issue. Woodroar (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Opposed. WP:HARASS 72.89.93.110 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban for the reasons stated here. I think that a minimum of trust is required for interactions among editors and I don't know how the community is supposed to react when Tutelary edits particular BLPs and articles about websites like Reddit or when they write about what they – as a woman – were able to "shrug off". Feigning collective ignorance can't be the desired solution. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per HJMitchell. I'd prefer an indef block/site ban but in the very least a BLP ban for Tutelary needs to brought into effect--Cailil talk 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The evidence brought here seems to be about good faith disagreements mostly. No evidence is presented of actual editing of articles in an inappropriate fashion. Just say no to lynch mobs.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. I want to ask for the exact evidence for this proposal. There are editors whose judgment I respect who are supporting here, and I have no use for people who intentionally defame BLP subjects or edit in a misogynistic manner, so I am not (yet) arguing against the proposal. But, somewhat per the subsection just below, I'm unclear as to the reasons. First of all, I oppose enacting any sanctions on the basis of "evidence" posted elsewhere. If Wikipediocracy presents evidence of disruption on Wikipedia, please show the diffs here. Beyond that, it seems to me that editors are citing diffs presented by Sonicyouth86, including: [2], which does strike me as containing some BLP violation, but it's the only diff like that that I've seen so far, and by itself it isn't enough for sanctions. The other links provided go either to edits where I don't see a problem (but I might be missing something), or to discussions where I might disagree with Tutelary, but I do not see evidence of working against consensus, just of expressing dissenting opinions. This is a real question, and again, I haven't prejudged this, but I'd like the editors who support bans to provide the exact evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It is likely there are many more, but they have been revdeled. KonveyorBelt 22:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, but please at least point to edit histories where that has happened. If I were to see a whole bunch of edits by Tutelary that were revdeled, I'd AGF that the revdels were appropriate, and that would be evidence that would convince me. But the statement that it is "likely" needs to be backed up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The page history of Talk:Zoe Quinn, for example, from 11:05, August 23, 2014β€Ž to 12:18, August 23, 2014β€Ž was revdeled. KonveyorBelt 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just examined the entire edit histories of Zoe Quinn and Talk:Zoe Quinn, from the creation of the page up to the present. There are depressingly many revdeled edits by other editors, which makes me wonder why we aren't looking at some of them (and of course I cannot know about anything that was suppressed/oversighted). On the page, zero of the many revdeled edits were by Tutelary. On the talk page, three of the many revdeled edits were by Tutelary, and in all three cases, the revdeled sequence begins with an edit by someone else, so I cannot see whether Tutelary's edits worsened the situation or not; in one case, I see Tutelary reverting Mr. Stradivarius, so that might have been restoring objectionable material, but I do not know that for sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me that I ought to ask: Mr. Stradivarius, what do you recollect about that revdeled edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: It was a proposed section for the article entitled "Scandal", five paragraphs long, written by Titanium Dragon. It was mostly well sourced and mostly neutral, but, in my opinion, some of the key phrases about Quinn were not neutral, and some of the sources used were not reliable. I thought that the problems were enough that it should be removed from the talk page. It was not so problematic that I would consider it as a base for any sanctions proposed here, though. I did think that removing it would be seen as being heavy-handed - and I was right - but I thought that it should be removed anyway. The edit itself was revdelled, not oversighted, so I can still access it. I can email it to you so that you can look at it yourself, if you like. (I see that you haven't set email in your preferences, but if you email me, I can email you back with the section.) β€” Mr. Stradivarius β™ͺ talk β™ͺ 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Strad, thanks so much. That explanation is very helpful to me. And is it any wonder, in this context, why I don't enable e-mail and I take so many other precautions about my privacy?! No, there's no need to e-mail it to me. I'm seeing a very consistent pattern here, of Tutelary reacting to edits on talk pages by other editors. The other editors make what I think are helpful edits, reverting content that might violate BLP or reverting images that might be offensive, or closing discussions. Tutelary repeatedly objects to those things, and reverts them. If one looks at the incidences in which Tutelary has actually done something objectionable (in my opinion, at least), it always involves reverting someone else in talk space. Always. The obnoxious or BLP-violating material always starts with another editor, and sometimes that other editor is Titanium Dragon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Are you satisfied with Mr. Strad's explanation of what was removed? Nothing which got revdeled from me was posted in bad faith, and all of it was sourced (though, as he noted, he didn't like some of the sources - and at the time, which was fairly early on in the whole thing, the selection of sources was fairly mediocre). It wasn't me randomly attacking Zoe Quinn; it was an attempt at improving the article, and it was all done in good faith. I've reviewed the WP:BLPNAME policy and other related policies since and I think we've all been doing a lot better on it. If you aren't aware, a lot of the problem is that the whole thing started out with Zoe Quinn's ex making a very angry blog post about her being involved with other people, but who she was involved with ended up triggering a bunch of very angry gamers to accuse her and those she was involved with of being corrupt (which actually ended up getting an official response from Kotaku, who employed one of the people involved - several sites also later went on to change their ethics policies to address some of the other issues which ended up being raised). Obviously the whole thing is rife with WP:BLP issues, seeing as it is about living people, and a lot of the really nasty stuff is fundamentally a stupid fight on the internet which ended up blowing up to the point of being noted by the wider press due to some attempts at censorship triggering the Streisand Effect, but given that the inciting incident is important to understanding the issue, it is hard to discuss the whole thing without mentioning it. It is obviously a sensitive subject and is a lot of "fun" to word right, but is also attested in dozens if not hundreds of potential sources at this point, and is noted as being the trigger for the whole thing, which probably helps us now as we can cite Forbes instead of a semi-obscure gaming website. Strad felt some of it wasn't neutrally worded and might be a BLP violation and revdeled it; we've since dealt with things a bit better, I think, and managed to see how to discuss said material on the talk page without issues with BLP. It probably also helps that it ended up in a LOT more sources after the initial discussion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Titanium Dragon, those are certainly arguments that I am open to considering, especially because I think that accusations are being thrown around carelessly and I don't want to see anyone get railroaded here. I'm at a disadvantage, because I'm not an admin and I cannot see the revdeled edits, so I certainly think that there is room for more discussion. At the same time, I didn't base what I said on a single incident. In looking over edit histories (and initially looking in terms of Tutelary), I kept seeing you getting revdeled again and again. It's been happening a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That was about Titanium Dragon's suggestions, which were based on some reliable sources, though some were questioned. He just did not provide the sources in the initial suggestion and so the section got removed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there was an incident that was about someone other than Tutelary where Tutelary just happened to be caught in the middle. The only other instance seems to have been a rapid Huggle reverting of unexplained blanking by an IP on a non-BLP article where the blanking did have a legitimate BLP basis, albeit not explained. Nothing I have seen suggests the kind of editing warranting such severe sanctions. I actually see one instance of Tutelary reverting alleged BLP violations on Quinn's page. None of this suggests a strong case for sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support siteban. Tutelary joined the gender gap task force, then sought to represent a woman's perspective in discussions on various pages (invariably posting against women's interests – e.g. "Fellow female editor here ... People here are getting mad that a woman's breast is depicted and I'm not sure why." [3]), while posting misogynist material offwiki. (This can be deduced from his contributions history and early account name.) If a white editor were to join a group on WP aimed at increasing racial diversity, maintain he was black himself, act disruptively around BLPs about black people, and post racism elsewhere, he'd be site-banned. (But if a siteban doesn't go through, then I support a BLP topic ban.) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I find the comment at Jimbo's talkpage offensive, myself. Here are all the edits made by Tutelary at the task force: [4]. I've gone through every one of them, and I don't see problems there, although there seems to be a lot of objecting to closing of discussion threads. I think we have to be careful about basing bans on posts supposedly made at other websites. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per the evidence given, to be fair here a topic ban is not forever if the editor in question can win back the trust of the community over time then I see no reason why it couldn't be lifted in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • About that evidence, what I see so far is [5] and [6]. Is there anything else? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Before the ANI, there was pushing to include gossip at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd. And before that, it was the statement that it's only a BLP violation if it happens on the BLP page. Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done a lot of editing at "Suicide of..." pages. I looked at the Amanda Todd talk page, and although I do see some indication of edit warring, it looks to me like what you call gossip was based on some British news sources saying that the cause of death was hanging, and there was a content dispute about whether the page should include the possible cause of death, or leave it out. And the diff about BLP violation does not actually say what you attribute to it, and seems to me to be more nuanced than that. Again, I still have an open mind, and I am interested in whether I'm simply missing something. And based on the Zoe Quinn page history, I wonder why we aren't looking at sanctions against other editors, because there sure were a lot of revdeled edits there. But each time I ask for evidence, and only get weak stuff like this, I become increasingly concerned that the evidence is pretty thin. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Per the Private Manning precedent, if this user wants to identify as a woman named "Danielle," then this editor is a woman named Danielle, QED β€” at least that's the majority view of the nature of gender according to participants in that debate. Not my own perspective of gender but hey, majority: As ye sow, etc. As for the specifics of this incident, based on a diff cited above from the Zoe Quinn talk page, I favor a very narrow ban of this user from the Zoe Quinn biography. The call for a site ban by SlimVirgin above seems a gross overreaction β€” straight to the death penalty. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I said this above, and had an edit conflict, but I'll repeat it here: And based on the Zoe Quinn page history, I wonder why we aren't looking at sanctions against other editors, because there sure were a lot of revdeled edits there. Really, there's another editor whose name came up earlier in this ANI thread, who has had a lot of edits revdeled at the Zoe Quinn page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, the rev-del was done because the statements about the controversy on talk were not directly sourced, even though numerous sources existed to back the statements. So, if that is the case, then I don't think any action is really warranted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- basically, per Tryptofish. Those clamoring for a ban have simply not provided any evidence that this is necessary, despite several requests. I think the grounds for a ban are very flimsy, and appear to be based on a personal dislike for Tutelary and their political opinions rather than any actual misbehaviour, and I oppose at this time. Reyk YO! 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support' topic ban for Tutelary, Titanium Dragon, Puedo. Most of the time on this page we have a problem with people who are alleged to be good content creators but cannot be civil or collaborative. Here we have editors who, at least in their dealings with me, have been respectful and civil but are unable to create content within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia. Editors on this talk page have advocated edits that run counter to fundamental rules of the encyclopedia like RS and BLP. They have challenged first-rate sources like The New Yorker and Time using arguments that amount to conspiracy theories based on Tweets while advocating the use of poor sources, blogs, and forum posts. While, to their credit, they have expressed a desire to conform to our rules, an article involving a vulnerable target of harassment and the focus of intense media attention is too important and sensitive to serve as a learning space for editors struggling to grasp our basic policies. It is a mistake to frame this in a legalistic way, as a "conviction" for bad behavior where editors produce or challenge the "evidence" of their "crime" This is just a way of saying "you aren't ready for this article yet, please edit something else while you get the hang of how things work." Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In the edit history for Zoe Quinn, Tutelary has made a lot of edits, and none of them has been revdeled (I'm not talking about the talk page here). Titanium Dragon has also made a lot of edits, and over and over, they do get revdeled. Puedo has not edited the page. I'm still trying to fully understand this, but it seems to me that Titanium Dragon has been the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I may have confused Puedo with someone else. Striking until I have time to review the relevant articles fully. You should also look at GamerGate and related articles. Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What Trytofish said is true, I haven't edited either the talk or article pages of Zoe Quinn/GamerGate at all. I have been commenting things related to feminism/MRM, but very rarely done actual article space edits. To be honest, you probably just support bans for editors whose point-of-view you disagree with. I think it's evident from some of the other support-votes too. --Pudeo' 12:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for mistakenly including you, but one mistaken, unsupported allegation does not justify you making another evidence-free claim. You should step away from this issue if you cannot refrain from making broad, unsupported claims about the motives of numerous other editors. WP:AGF, please. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel. If there is something specific you'd like me to see at GamerGate, please provide a diff. I went through the entire edit history of the page and the talk page, and looked for revdeled edits. Although Tutelary made many edits, none of them appear to have been revdeled (again, I don't know about suppression/oversight). But, again, I do see Titanium Dragon having been revdeled. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. Claiming to be a woman while posting misogynist comments. [7] Edit warring to restore inappropriate misogynist image. [8] then joining gender gap group. β€”Neotarf (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Cleavage is not misogynistic and . . . wasn't the whole discussion about the image? Seems like it was put there by a critic literally illustrating the problem with a ridiculously tactless decision by a Signpost writer.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not know if this person identifies as trans-sexual so it is best to be careful here, if they don't though which the editor in question gave no indication in this case then I understand why it would cause others to be upset. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
About those two diffs, [9] does not seem to be a problem to me, but [10] does. For me, that makes a third problematic diff. And I've already pointed out that there does not really seem to be a problem at the gender gap page – although I am starting to think that there may be an issue with talk page reverts. Perhaps there should be an editing restriction against reverting in talk space, other than self-reverts. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The person who started the thread on Jimbo's talk and posted the image did it to criticize the usage of the image here. I don't think that is a serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't, TDA? At this point, I deeply regret supporting your bid for Arbcom. I won't make that mistake again. β€”Neotarf (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You are suggesting a site ban because someone restored an image of boobs in a discussion that was about said image of boobs and claiming the image of boobs was misogynistic. I find that more silly than serious.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You should read that whole thread, TDA, there's a lot more to it. But of course we won't be able to discourage women from joining the project by just posting a link to a disputed thumbnail image. In order to convince them that Wikipedia is just a bunch of predatory neckbeards who want to interact with them with only one hand on the keyboard, you have to actually re-post the image at a larger size, on a talk page with 3,169 page watchers, and make locker room comments about it. And above all, just keep arguing and reverting, after the image has been removed multiple times by multiple editors. β€”Neotarf (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess locker room talk has gotten a lot more tactful than I remember . . .--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Didn't read the edit summaries, didja. Or the in-line comments you can only see in edit mode. Hmm, I see you have typed the word "boobs" three times...β€”Neotarf (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I read the summaries and saw the in-line comment too. How many locker room conversations have you heard exactly Neo? Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion of boobs, then perhaps you should go to my talk page. There you can feel free to talk with me about boobs all day.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose So we can't out anyone here but if someone else does the dirty work we'll take it at face value and ban people on the say-so of someone who has a blog about wikipedia. Why not just hand the editors over there the mop? If you want to ban someone do it on the merits, not some low rent horseshit from some random website. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually the administrators over there have been handing in their mops lately, interpret that as you will. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support BLP ban only. At an article I was helping help build, Tutelary removed well-sourced content. In my experience, that is one of the clearest indicators of activist editing (please take note of this, administrators, so you can start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy). However, when I opined on the talk page that I thought the section was fine, Tutelary ceased objecting to it. So, I think it's ok for her to continue editing the topics she takes an interest in, EXCEPT for BLPs, because with BLPs there is just no room for activist editing. People's lives are at stake. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Tutelary does have a problem on talk pages with NPOV can affect her interpretation of sources. That said, I've not seen anything bad faith and I've not seen an active agenda pushing on mainspace. A short BLP topic ban may let her cool her boots but I think a civil explanation of what she's doing wrong, why its wrong and how to do it right would go a lot further to solving the problem. SPACKlick (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support With the additions they made to Zoe and Anitas pages, plus Tutelarys support of The Fappening articles, I find it hard to believe that this person respects the women whose articles they edit. I would suggest a BLP ban, or at the very least, one for the articles for women, as this editor seems to have no desire to break WP:BLP for articles with male subjects --109.148.125.223 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC) β€” 109.148.125.223 (talk β€’ contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Here is further evidence that Tutelary understands how WP:BLP works but only chooses to enforce it when it concerns men [11]. I am sure that a BLP ban for the articles of women only would suffice here --109.148.126.200 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was holding off posting this but I really think admins should see this link where a user called Tutelary acknowledges hacking a persons computer and stealing information [12] - you can read one of the images linked here [13]. Tutelary themselves has wrote an article on this website here [14], so I would say it's likely they are the same Tutelary. This is pretty crucial, as often editors email each other using links provided in the user space, a medium which would allow a user to spread malware through email attachments. For an editor who edits in politically charged areas, this could cause problems in the future --109.148.126.200 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Hardly any evidence, people are often wrong in BLP, they happen to add just anything. I would just hope that this proposal would enforce Tutelary to learn some more. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose on site ban. People calling for her to be banned for editing based on political beliefs is absurd. Anyone is allowed to freely edit as long as they don't force their views upon other editors and be disruptive. I support a short topic ban on BLP per SPACKlick's proposal above. Wikipedia isn't a political arena. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 18:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per SlimVirgin. Her analogy is apt, and appropriate. Site ban massively preferred. Topic ban (from everything BLP related, not just BLP articles) at the very least. Begoon talk 18:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban, per precedent of the Essjay controversy. In case you don't recall, Essjay was a highly trusted user that pretended to be a professor of theology to gain advantage in editing arguments. I have been convinced by the evidence presented by Nw on Wikipediocracy that our User:Tutelary is a male pretending to be a female to gain advantage in a "war against the feminists" on Wikipedia. I can't link to the evidence myself (an earlier support was removed by Tutelary and later oversighted on request from Tutelary although it didn't link to any personal information) but it is convincing that our Tutelary is the same Tutelary who writes about being "a guy" pretending to be a "a girl" in order to insert RATs, specifically Darkcomet. Our Tutelary added information about Darkcomet to our Remote administration software article.[15] It is convincing that our Tutelary, former User:Ging287 is the same Ging287 who complains about the "gyrocentric POV" on Wikipedia. Our Tutelary then claims to be a woman to defend posting a large bosom on the main page.[16] Nothing wrong with holding political beliefs, but per the Essjay precedent, pretending to be a woman to gain advantage in editing disputes is ban worthy. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for anyone a bit confused at what happened there, Tutelary removed a post which linked to his activities on Reddit and elsewhere. If that's not allowed, I'll just quote this one (bear in mind that he is still pretending to be female on Wikipedia) "The exploit ONLY works for Yahoo messenger, sorry I didn’t mention that. But it’s good for pretending to be a girl, all it takes is, β€œHey, wanna see me naked? <3" and you've got another slave.". Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite:, I am a female and I consider it harassment to continue to refer to me by male pronouns. I am a girl, and I'm going to respectfully ask that you refer to me as such. And where did you get that quote? I'm a bit confused by it, namely the terms of 'slaves' and 'exploits and are you supposing I said it somewhere? Tutelary (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK - to be clear, are you clearly stating that you are not the person on those two external sites with exactly the same username as your previous one here, and who is interested in exactly the same issues, with exactly the same viewpoints, on those forums as you are on here? If so, how do you explain that astonishing coincidence? I will be quite happy to apologise and withdraw if you can do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't answer if you don't provide the names of the sites. But please don't link them here, but say their names. I can do my own sleuthing to find the account links. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the title of this section is "Wikipediocracy doxxing", perhaps I can suggest you read their article and the comments on it? Oh hang on, I can see from the above postings that you have actually read it. Which means you do know the names of the sites. Here's a fact for you - we're not idiots here Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I have not read the comments since the first day because they were all constantly making salacious and offensive comments about me and my supposed off site connections. Plus, as I mentioned within the 'it should be noted' section my heart pressure was spiked and my heart was pacing every single time I thought about it. It's still bad right now, but manageable. I figured that if I continued looking at the article and subsequent comments I would have panic attacks. So I didn't. I did know about Reddit but not the bit about Hackforums. I have accounts on neither. Also, Is that why everybody is getting their pitchforks? Because there's somebody with the same name as me on Hackforums and Reddit and think it's me? Oh, and because I had that sandbox article? Well I think I can cut this straight right now. I began to write that article because Hackforums is one of those 'underground' hacker forums that constantly gets well-deserved flak when actually written about in RS, yet hasn't had an article as of yet. I also found it somewhat stupid that people would register on it and brag about their illegal activities, and they deserve what they get coming to them. Anywho, I never actually submitted it because I talked to the protecting administrator (who fully protected the title because members of the site were subsequently spamming the site which was obviously not notable at the time on Wikipedia) who said the article was not up to par. The only reason it was on my radar even is because Miss Teen America got hacked by a member from the forum and googling 'Hackforums wikipedia' came up nothing so I wantd to write the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Reddit user Ging287 discussed this revert on Reddit 5 months ago with another Redditor, who complained that that edit reverted an addition he had made. Redditor Ging287 said: "Hello. I was the one who reverted your edit. It was due to the specific wording that you attempted to use." At the time, Ging287 was Tutelary's user name here. More such parallels between Ging287's discussions of Wikipedia on Reddit and Ging287's/Tutelary's edits here can easily be found. Andreas JN466 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is worth noting that this Reddit post, where Redditor Ging287 claimed ownership of Tutelary's edit here, has now been deleted on Reddit (though an archive copy is available). This seems like another remarkable coincidence, and I do not believe Tutelary's comment above, "I have accounts on neither", was truthful. There has been some discussion of this on my user talk page. Andreas JN466 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously baiting editors to restore the diff link for the quote so that you can have their answer oversighted again and maybe have them blocked? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a loaded question, like 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' I've done nothing of the sort, but it appears that since Black Kite is the one that proposed this whole thing, it should be a given that I should understand their position, including where I supposedly said something. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the two accounts was on Hackforums. You know, the one you're writing a sandbox article about. User:Tutelary/sandbox/Hackforums. By complete coincidence. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, you deleted the comment that contained the diff for the quote. Then you had the comment and the diff oversighted. And now you innocently request that someone tell you where you said that stuff about pretending to be a woman. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're confused by the term 'slaves', User:Tutelary, you should read the excellent explanation of that term added to Wikipedia by User:Tutelary here. Face-smile.svg Andreas JN466 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I really just forgot about the article since talking to the protecting admin and just let it be. I don't remember things forever, especially things I wrote 3 and a half months ago. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I see you write above your first name is Danielle? The user Tutelary on Hackforums actually uses the same name in one thread. Not the thread he writes "I am a guy" in. Uses the last name and everything. The same last name you use in an account on a Wikipedia-related site that I guess you will admit is you. Weird coincidence, huh? --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Black Kite, I had asked for clarification, so thank you for expanding on it here. At this point, I can pretty much see what is going on here. I don't know if what it says at Wikipediocracy is true or not, but I'd speculate that the odds are greater than 50% that it more or less is true. What neither Black Kite nor anyone else has been able to provide are diffs of Tutelary actually adding BLP-violating material to mainspace pages. So, for the sake of conversation, let's just suppose that Tutelary is, hypothetically, a horrible person in the real world. When people who are horrible people in the real world come to Wikipedia and act disruptively, we sanction them for the disruption. But if we were to ban every Wikipedia editor who is a messed-up person in real life, based on who they are in real life and not on something that can be documented by diffs here, well, there would be a lot fewer longtime editors here. And if we ban them for not being who they claim to be, well, I claim to be a fish, but I don't make disruptive edits. I do see some things that Tutelary has done that merit some kind of action, but I don't want to base it on WP:ASPERSIONS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not Black Kite, but for me, I'm not asking Tutelary be banned for being a horrible person in the real world, just on Wikipedia. I'm asking Tutelary be banned for writing "as a woman I say X", multiple times, in editing discussions where being a woman clearly gave cachet, when it seems Tutelary's not a woman ... (and was expressing an opinion counter to that of most women in the discussion). That's basic disruption of Wikipedia, and it's what Essjay controversy was about. Women have it tough enough on Wikipedia, that having "a guy" pretend to be one of them to disrupt discussion is pretty bad. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
^^^This. We want to remove the gender gap? Well, remove people playing juvenile impersonation games to undermine those efforts. Simple. Begoon talk 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
GRuban, you raise an issue that I care about very much. But if I parse what you said, you object to Tutelary gaining cachet based on what may well be a false persona, and to a lesser extent to Tutelary "expressing an opinion counter to that of most women in the discussion". I hope that it's obvious that we shouldn't ban editors for expressing unpopular opinions, with respect to that last part. As for the main part of your concern, I'm in favor of some editing restrictions in talk space, but I think that there is little likelihood of "cachet" going forward, and "cachet" is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Editors are free, going forward, to assign Tutelary's opinions the same value they might give to a male editor's opinions, instead of a female editor's opinions – and I hope that you can see the pitfalls of even treating those opinions differently in the first place. But, again, I do note that there are talk space problems, noting also that everything cited below by CΓΊchullain is also in talk space. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's like saying that someone who is known to use sock puppets to comment 5 times in a discussion under different names shouldn't be banned because from this point forward editors would be free to ignore 4 of them. We should and do ban people for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and we did ban Essjay for pretending to be a professor of theology in arguments where that matters, and we should ban Tutelary for pretending to be a woman in arguments where that matters. Discussion is very valuable for us. I have nothing against someone expressing an unpopular opinion, (you'll notice I didn't weigh in on the bosom discussion!) but when that someone says "I'm a member of group X, so my opinion is extra valuable", and they're not, that's just as fundamental disruption as WP:SOCK: "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus". It's just the same if they wrote their opinion 5 times under different names, or if they claimed to be a professor of theology in a topic where that would matter. It's a ban-worthy offense. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that your analogy is flawed. A sock-er gains multiple !votes, and that's very disruptive. Someone who says "I'm a member of group X, so my opinion is extra valuable", is only disruptive to the extent that other editors accept as true that claim of extra value. I edit, for example, many neuroscience pages and it just so happens (so I claim!) that I've been a neuroscience professor in real life. But, even though I just said that here, I never say that in talk page discussions on those pages (except one time when I declined a request to comment because of a COI). That's because I don't care if some editor is a Nobel Laureate – if they make a bad edit, I'll revert it. And if a schoolchild makes a good edit, I'll support it. This isn't the same thing as Essjay, because Essjay parlayed the misrepresentation into advanced permissions. And, in fact, you haven't really proved that Tutelary isn't a trans woman. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 !votes? There was no !voting in the bosom photos discussion, there was merely a decision - should we have a photo of a bosom on the main page? And since arguably the main issue there was "is it offensive to women?" - the voice of someone who said they were a woman was easily worth 5 who said they weren't. Same for joining the Gender Gap project - the voice of an editor claiming to be a woman is easily more valuable in getting more women to join than any number of people who don't claim to be women. Sure, we haven't "proved" Tutelary isn't a trans woman; but we can hardly do a DNA analysis. We have proven she's a troll, who happily claims to be "a girl" to install RATs, then says she's "a guy". I think that's plenty indicative she's a similar troll who claims to be "a girl" (this time quoting her above!) to disrupt Wikipedia. See SlimVirgin's analogy of someone claiming to be black when joining a racial diversity project. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the analogy is WP:ASPERSIONS. If it makes you feel any better about my position, I do support restrictions on Tutelary in talk space. Sincerely, I really do care about making Wikipedia a more welcoming place, but I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban (or a fallback to feminism and BLP ban) per Essjay controversy. Pretending to be someone who you are not for the benefit of winning debates and pushing an anti-feminist POV does not engender trust. Although oversighted, the evidence is fairly clear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Per a request by Tutelary, I will edit my comment to say that I find this user highly untrustworthy due to off-site behavior. This behavior has manifested itself on Wikipedia as POV-pushing and disruption, some of which is plainly in this thread itself. Continued, stubborn insistence of innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is perplexing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Given the seriousness of BLP articles here on Wikipedia is there a way of matching up the IP address used on the other sites with the one used here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban or site ban for Tutelary. Here are all of the diffs that have been presented in this wall-of-text in which Tutelary has added BLP-violating material to Wikipedia articles: there aren't any. But I would support a BLP topic ban for Titanium Dragon, who has made enough such edits to justify the sanction. And, I would support an editing restriction on Tutelary, forbidding reverts (except self-reverts) in talk page space, because everything where Tutelary has edited badly really consists of that. And I think we should also caution some of the supporters in this discussion about WP:ASPERSIONS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Edits like this BLP violation are just symptoms of a much wider pattern of inserting, or advocating for inserting, poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of living women. Though individual edits and comments generally avoid violating the letter of BLP, discussions like these[17][18][19] show a clear tendency toward inserting negative material about living people based on questionable or unusable sources. Even if we assume good faith about Tutelary's intentions (which is a big assumption at this point), they clearly lack the competence expected of editors dealing with highly sensitive BLP topics, and they take up a considerable amount of other editors' time and energy. It simply shouldn't be so difficult for Wikipedia to channel problematic editors away from topics where they can cause serious damage, whether it's towards topics where they can be productive (through a topic ban), or toward another hobby altogether. On another note, it's also time to look into sanctions for Titanium Dragon and editors who have been disrupting these articles recently.--CΓΊchullain t/c 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that I shouldn't have the obligation nor the will to report another administrator's decisions up for review? Are you saying that in the terms of that I think wider input should be sought, I should not do a RfC? And to the fact that I 'lack competence', I do not, and that is plainly a personal attack. CIR is cited often when a user does not learn after an incessant amount of guidance, help, among other things, that is not the case here. The two that you cite are months and months old and appear to be only be useful in this discussion because there is shant a shred of recent evidence that I've been disruptive other than that misinterpreted diff. It's plainly obvious of that when you have to cite a RfC that was done when the dispute was still fresh, and a review of an administrator's authority and BLP policy. The diff of me restoring the talk page comment was actually a misinterpreted; I had the impression that NeinL had a problem with specific portions of the comment and that it was salvageable overall. I reverted only once. Indeed, in the next diff, you can see that I removed what I thought NeiNL thought was objectionable and then NeinL reverted again with further clarification and I did not revert again because it was evident that it was not salvageable. Tutelary (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Making a few problem edits and comments and then improving is one thing. Making the same problem edits again and again, over the course of months, and across multiple articles and forums, as you've been doing, is a serious problem. This is incompetence at best, if not outright intentional tendentious editing. In neither case should you come anywhere near a biography of a living person again.--CΓΊchullain t/c 01:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: - Please note that we actually can go back two revs and see what the content in question was (why it wasn't revdeled, I can't say, but only that particular edit was); the content did not originate with Tutelary, and the content in question was an post about being censored and about how the main gaming journalism websites were biased in their own favor from a third party. The post was probably not the best thing in the universe, but the problem was that some folks had been reverting every attempt to discuss some of the issues involved, which have been, at this point, reliably sourced. Banning them over revving back to something someone else posted, especially given that their reason was "delete the BLP violating information and leave the rest", isn't something I would consider a bannable offense at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Restoring some's flagrant BLP violation by edit warring is equally as bad as making the violation yourself. Especially when it's part of a larger pattern of BLP issues such as I linked to. What you "consider" carries no weight given your own various BLP violations. Neither of you should be editing BLPs.--CΓΊchullain t/c 13:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose site or topic ban for Tutelary; though i have the highest respect for Black Kite and others who have commented or opined here, it simply isn't reasonable, in my view, to say, "Oh, there's evidence, but i'm not showing it to you, just take my word for it". Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't, but if i cannot see it (and, no thank you, i don't care to go searching off-site for it), it isn't convincing to me. Cheers, LindsayHello 22:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Er - it's been posted, deleted, and oversighted. What do you suggest, Lindsay? How shall we show it to you? --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Lindsay, we can't show you the evidence because every time someone presents any it gets oversighted away (Tutelary's adherence to policy improves remarkably when it suits Tutelary). The evidence that Tutelary has behaved inappropriately on BLPs is all above and in Tutelary's contributions. The evidence that Tutelary is an agenda-driven POV warier rather than a misguided newbie relies on analysis of their comments elsewhere on the web, and the evidence that they are not who they say they are was posted by third parties to Wikipediocracy. It's not difficult to find, but people who don't care to explain themselves to us mere mortals won't allow it to be posted on the wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, are you really doubting the oversight team here? Oversight is important to the wiki as personal information should just be left to be discovered via page history or even be left on the page itself. Oh, and I've heard of administrators who today only use their administrative actions to read revdeletions, make a post a month to keep their mop, and Oversight even protects against those snooping eyes as well. If you have a complaint, you can address it to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee. But do read WP:OVERSIGHT, in which one of its purposes is to protect privacy. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm very familiar with both those processes. You forget, I was elected as an administrator to protect this project form people like you long before you created your account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I've done a bunch of revision deleting on those pages, and I don't have oversight powers, so those revisions are still accessible by mere mortal administrators like ourselves. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So, the police have found that a person's behavior may be problematic, but the police is not the prosecutor and the prosecutor is not the judge. Based on the evidence so far, first make a strong case that Wikipedia has been edited in an inpropriate way, if this is found to be the case let's discuss with the editor to make sure this won't continue. If this fails, one can start to think about sanctions to protect Wikipedia from problematic editing by the editor. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a community site ban based only on evidence provided on Wikipediocracy. Wikipediocracy should not be considered a reliable source. If there is non-public information available that User:Tutelary has in fact engaged in gender misrepresentation, then ArbCom is the appropriate authority to impose the ban. To repeat, I oppose any action based solely on information posted by an unreliable web site whose purpose is to attack the Wikipedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Robert McClenon, the information is quite public. It consists in public posts, made by what is evidently the same individual, on hackforums.net and Reddit. There is no need to involve Wikipediocracy at all. Andreas JN466 23:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that gender misrepresentation does deserve a ban. I just don't see that the evidence of gender misrepresentation is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears that the main BLP issue has to do with Zoe Quinn. So many of the edits to Zoe Quinn have been either redacted or suppressed (a non-admin cannot tell the difference) that it is difficult to determine who the offenders were. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Robert, as one non-admin to another, you can see somewhere above where I went through all the edits at Zoe Quinn, and (at the page, not the talk page), none of the revdeled edits were by Tutelary, but quite a few were by Titanium Dragon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support siteban per SlimVirgin. Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a number of reasons, but mostly per Tryptofish's analysis of the situation. First, temporarily ignore all of the accusations of Tutelary being a man and pretending to be a woman, and look at their contributions to Wikipedia. If another editor had the same set of contributions to Wikipedia, without any of the gender impersonation issues, would you be supporting a BLP ban or a site ban for them, based on those contributions alone? Probably not. I haven't seen diffs of anything so extreme that a ban is required. Second, the gender impersonation issues aren't provable, nor are they a valid reason to ban anyone, even if they were proven to be true. There is no Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from misrepresenting their gender, therefore there is no policy-based rationale to block someone for it. It's certainly not something that I would do myself, nor would I encourage others to do it, but that doesn't mean that I need to force my beliefs/principles/values on other people. If you get off on telling people that you're an 89-year-old blind albino Icelandic princess when in reality you're a 23-year-old dude living in your parents' basement, then go for it. This is the internet; there is never a reason to trust someone's claims about themselves. Finally, I oppose a ban based on off-wiki evidence that can't be posted on-wiki because the evidence itself violates Wikipedia policies. Such a ban would be a reward to those individuals who spend their time scouring the internet to expose the personal information and identity of Wikipedia editors with whom they disagree, and it would only encourage them to continue doxing other editors (maybe it'll be you next time). Doxing someone can be potentially traumatic and can potentially affect the target’s life, their family, and damage their livelihood. It should not be tolerated on- or off-wiki, and it cannot be rewarded. Exposing someone’s private information is an extremely disproportionate reaction to the transgressions that Tutelary is accused of. I believe that Tutelary has gone through enough, and I believe that this event is likely more than enough to cause Tutelary to behave in an appropriate manner, should they choose to continue editing here. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    "There is no Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from misrepresenting their gender [...] If you get off on telling people that you're an 89-year-old blind albino Icelandic princess when in reality you're a 23-year-old dude living in your parents' basement, then go for it. This is the internet; there is never a reason to trust someone's claims about themselves." Wikipedia "is an entertainment, an annoyance, a distraction, a put-on, a reading experience, a performance, a series of ironies, an inversion that you do or do not get. At times you might read excerpts from these texts in the news and you might take themβ€”at your own perilβ€”at surface value. Which any college English freshman would warn you not to do. And which any graduate student in literature would laugh at you for doing. Ever onward, mate. Face-smile.svg Andreas JN466 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I had never seen that before, but it is quite apt and I enjoyed it immensely. "Wikipedia is not reality and nothing happening on Wikipediaβ€”or 'behind the scenes at Wikipedia'β€”is real. So get the fuck over it." Thanks Face-wink.svg ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad it amuses you, Scotty--but what Qworty is saying, of course, is that we should wipe our asses with the BLP policy. "Not real": we're talking about someone who for years abused Wikipedia to settle old scores. Ask those people how not real it was. I would hope that an administrator here would take these matters a bit more seriously, since BLP violations, unlike what that "writer" had to tell us on his soapboxy userpage, are not victimless crimes. Andreas, your point is well taken. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2014β€Ž (UTC)
  • Support siteban pr Jayen466 and SlimVirgin, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - have not seen demonstration of any strong problems with editing by Tutelary. Claiming real life credentials for something that the users are not including gender, occupation, degrees, race, ethnicity, age, residence, etc. is wrong but it is hardly a bannable offence (maybe deserves a warning). Wiki rules are specifically designed to avoid reliance on editor's claims and the case may be a good reminder for this. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'm ready to vote for a ban on anything--but I find Tutelary's editing incredibly problematic. Right now I really doubt their competence, and this after teasing out a couple of diffs on Cunt and some chatter on the talkpage, including quite insulting remarks and an attempt to evade--Gobonobo knows what I'm talking about. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see a competence issue there. That thread is a perfect example of what Tutelary and Tutelary's mates have been doing with considerable success at the gender gap task force: transparently specious "argument" and unfounded opposition to frustrate and demoralise genuine editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose especially per Count Iblis's comment below, and those by Alex Bakharev, Tryptofish, Robert McClenon, and Scotty Wong above. Some folks here clearly wish to silence (via bans/blocks) or WP:Censor editors with whom they strongly disagree (the underlying motivation here). Some are willing to blatantly ignore WP policies to achieve that end. That intolerance of intellectual diversity, and efforts to curb free and open discussion, reveals WP:NOTHERE. This is not what WP is about. WP has never been about who someone is, it is about what they have contributed to the project. Memills (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean your kind of "intellectual diversity" and the editing that got you topic banned indefinitely from all men's rights related pages and discussions? Haven't you been arguing that those your consider "gender feminists" and supposedly "feminist" sources should be excluded as RS? Tutelary defended your contributions in that topic area like your problematic BLP edits in Michael Kimmel's BLP where you kept adding negative commentary to the page based on an opinion piece in an unreliable men's rights journal. Don't get me started on the role Tutelary played in enabling disruptive, POV driven editors in the men's rights topic area. By the way, please let me know when that ArbCom case you and Tutelary discussed is on the way. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As usual, it is stunning to watch you misrepresent facts, eschew accuracy, and lob ad hominems in an agenda to silence editors that challenge your POV. Exemplifies the very point. And, it is not lost on the editors here who ask: "Where are the diffs? They're aren't any." Memills (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I fail to see any evidence of disruption here on WP, where are the DIFFS supporting a similar request? Unconvinced there is a problem, sorry. And banning on the basis of a wikipediocracy article investigating the off-wiki identity of an editor would be a terrible precedent. Cavarrone 13:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you crazy? No. Strongest possible oppose. I don't see a single diff of any disruption. We're going to start banning people for someone at wikipediocracy posting something about her? Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The difs in question are oversighted on Quinns page --109.148.126.200 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Incredibly strong oppose to this discussion as if let's say that she DID pretend to be female, that shouldn't be even able to be used to gain any sort of advantage in a content dispute or any dispute. If I said "As a woman I think my opinions are more important", I don't get how that even boosts my hypothetical actual position on anything. You can't BAN people based on Wikipediocracy postings! IT'S A BLOG! If a blog isn't a reliable source for articles, how is it a reliable source for a site ban? You can't ban people based on off-wiki issues! The points in question is "fraudulently claiming to be a woman" (claimed by an UNRELIABLE source), "off-wiki activities", and "BLP disputes". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "fraudulently claiming to be a woman" can't be in any way, shape, or form, a BANNABLE offence at this time! Who determines that he's a woman? A blog on the internet? Or Tutelary herself? Plus, the arguments advanced in favour of using this as a bannable offence state that she used her position as a woman to get advantages in discussions. How is that possible? The fact that you are a woman shouldn't have any bearing on any discussion, so the point is moot, unless somebody else took that into account in closing discussions, in which it is that person's fault. Off-wiki activities can't have a bearing on your contributions, as you should only be judged in a discussion by whether your position is backed up with reliable sources. She could be a militant feminist advancing the killing of all men off-wiki and I'd be fine with her complying with all policies and being consensus forming in discussions. The so-called "BLP disputes" are disputed themselves, by other editors on this page. The only way there could possible be grounds for a ban is in the area of BLP disputes. That should be the discussion we're having, and according to the strongest arguments, Tutelary is in the right. Other people just call her a misogynist and expect that to win on the sheer number of !support votes. Too bad that Wikipedia isn't a vote. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess if Tutelary got banned for his involvement with misogynistic Reddit discussions, you might be the next one looking at a ban. Oh, no, I guess not because you deleted your account last week, didn't you? Did you think no one would notice? Kaletony (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both site and BLP ban at this time, mostly per Tryptofish. We should not be using what may or may not have happened on other sites as fodder for bans here. I.e., If an editor is a good candidate for a ban, then the appropriate evidence must come from Wikipedia diffs. I also suggest that this thread be closed before it wastes anymore of the community's resources. (This has been going back and forth for more than five days now, and no clear consensus will emerge from this thread) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • My problem is with what Tutelary has been doing on this site. But I agree, there isn't a concise, coherent and persuasive argument supporting that position in this page - It's there if you follow the right links, I suppose. But I've got promises to keep and don't have time for whak-a-mole right now. So, unless something comes out of left field in the next day or so, I'll support closing this as unresolved. (And maybe setting up a broad RfC on anti-women behaviour here. But later.)
Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 05:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Take it to Arbcom As it appears there is "private information" (in the Wikipedia sense) and there appears to be more than one off-site kefluffle going [20] that maybe further being pursued on wikipedia, Arbcom is the place to sort this out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Protonk. On the Internet, nobody knows that you're a dog, or a male. Any statement concerning themselves by anonymous editors should be taken with a grain of salt. Figureofnine (talk β€’ contribs) 22:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

* Support site ban - Tutelary's obvious dissembling should make it clear to anyone with a clue that he has been playing you all along. If I were him, I would be more concerned by the very real prospect of the police knocking on his door than with continuing this charade on Wikipedia. Kaletony (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) β€” Kaletony (talk β€’ contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • lol: there's an old interwebs adage: "don't feed the trolls". If you don't know who's feeding the trolls in this situation, it's probably you ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban , else BLP topic ban. (revised - nah, site ban it should be) More than justified. Volunteer Marek  07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As @Mr. Stradivarius: and @Tryptofish: noted above, none of the article space revdels were by Tutelary. Of my own, as Strad noted, they weren't made in bad faith, were indeed sourced (though some folks weren't happy with some of the sources - we had a discussion about them on the talk page, as was recommended by one of the ANIs about the article), and were written "mostly" neutrally (I did my best, but no one is perfect :P I thought it was alright. I have a copy of it still, if anyone is interested, though I'm not sure how to link to stuff like that easily). It wasn't, as noted, a hit piece on Zoe Quinn, but an overview of what was going on; the central issue is more or less that Zoe's ex outed her as being involved with several people involved in the gaming industry, and all of them got accused of being corrupt and promoting each other and attacking each others' enemies by very angry gamers. At this point, we have far better sources thanks to much better coverage.
I can't speak for all the revdels on the talk page, but a previous ANI noted that they probably were a little bit overboard and probably didn't all need to happen. It is water under the bridge at this point, though, and the concerns were over BLP issues which I think have since been satisfied via discussion on the talk page once some folks (NOT the admins) stopped deleting all attempts at discussion. And I'm sure at least some of the revdels were people being angry on the talk page; given Tutelary's general behavior, though, if they restored any of those (and given the ones that I have seen restored, weren't exceptionally bad, and frankly I see worse every day elsewhere on the encyclopedia) I'm not really worried about it. There were concerns about censorship of the talk page by several folks, and eventually that quieted down after the ANI agreed that discussing these things wasn't a BLP vio because of all the sourcing.
As for the rest of it - Tutelary hasn't seemed overly hostile, and has been quite civil compared to many of the other people who have been involved in editing that article. I don't care what gender they are and have actually been sent stuff which pretty much confirms their identification via Twitter (and then had to explain to said person why, exactly, posting that information was a bad idea, because some folks don't understand the concept of "the problem was the violation of privacy, and that is going to further violate their privacy"). I think they've been trying to improve Wikipedia. I haven't seen evidence of any poor behavior ON Wikipedia. If someone has evidence of actual poor behavior, I'm more than happy to look at it, but I'm not seeing anything all that exciting. Certainly nothing warranting a ban. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. Tutelary has demonstrated that he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to enact an anti-feminist agenda that includes trolling the editors at the gender gap task force and making tendentious edits to BLPs and women-related topics. Tutelary's actions fit the mold of a broader campaign of disruptive editing waged by MRAs that reddit, A Voice for Men, 4chan, and the like send our way. Women editors and efforts to address the gender gap are just targets for 'lulz'. This noticeboard's ongoing inability to do anything about it or take action against the editors who engage in this behavior is discouraging. gobonobo + c 14:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban - +1,000 btc to Gobonobo for being blunt. The fact that too many admins and editors here are naive enough to fall for the 'lulz' and disruption is beyond discouraging. Tutelary should have been indeffed as soon as the information became known. Any editor that has any clue at all can see what's going on here. It's a pity that we continue to allow this silliness to escalate, like fools. Just the disruption and BLP violations can be pointed to for the admins and editors who don't know what 4chan is. Sigh...... Dave Dial (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question to editors who support a site ban or topic ban: I think that you can see that opinions in this discussion are divided, and it is becoming unlikely that such bans will get consensus (unless new evidence comes out of the sockpuppet investigation). I earlier proposed an editing restriction in which Tutelary would be restricted against making reverts (other than self-reverts) in talk space. If you look closely, all of Tutelary's edits that have come under the greatest concern are reverts of that sort. If the bans cannot be agreed to, would you find the editing restriction helpful, or would you consider it inadequate? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think admins would regret not making the decision for at least a topic ban, it's not like Quinn's harassers have been receiving good press and Wikipedia already has a pretty bad reputation for being misogynistic. It was Tutelary who added the information about the incident to the article against consensus to wait, with plenty of "allegedly"'s for the harassment she received but none for her supposed "sex for coverage". I don't think some people here realise how serious it is to add information about this to a WP:BLP --5.81.51.98 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Admins block, but the community bans. Plenty of us understand how serious BLP is, but we don't ban people because of outside press concerns. I've been asking and asking for diffs of Tutelary adding BLP-violating material to the page (not the talk page), and I'm still waiting. But there clearly are problematic reverts on talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
BLP covers certain talk page edits. It's not "anything goes" just because it's not in article space.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I never said "anything goes" – and that's why I'm proposing an editing restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. It has been ridiculous to see the Wikipedia gang up on a doxxing victim like this. If you're worried about a misogynistic reputation, then I suggest not going on witchhunts against underage female editors. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pshhh. What does it matter? If this goes by without admin action, it just shows how clueless admins are. So why would anyone who does have a clue care about more bureaucratic bullshit? Dave Dial (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: no diffs have been provided that clearly show our blocking policy's definition of disruption. As far as misrepresenting one's identity goes, if that were blockable then a huge portion of our users should be banned. By stating that misrepresenting one's identity is a bannable offense, you will be rewarding people for doxxing wiki editors they don't like in order to get them banned. I am sure there are large numbers of editors who misaffiliate their sex, race, qualifications, probably even people in this thread, and I don't want to see witchhunts becoming standard procedures. As always wikipedia should focus on the edit's, and the arguments of editors, and not on their stated qualifications. This isn't Citizendium.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment So, all of the egregious diffs that were provided have been revdel-ed, and now some people are basing oppose !votes on the idea that no refs were provided? People seem to be opposing based on basic ignorance of the situation in more recent comments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
We can still see that diffs have been revedeled (not the same as suppressed/oversighted), and none of them in mainspace have been by Tutelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a "non-mainspace" exemption for problematic BLP edits? If they're using the site to spread damaging claims about BLP subjects, it doesn't matter where they do it, talk page, noticeboard, wikiproject, whatever.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In such cases people can sometimes cross the line due to heated discussions, the proper way to put a stop to that is by first issueing a warning that BLP must be respected also outside the editing of articles. In principle, we are here to help editors stick to the rules we have here and if that doesn't work within the margins of errors we can tolerate, we need to impose restrictions. If people say that they can already tell that this editor is up to no good, then we don't need to preemptively act on that assessment, the outcome of the normal process to deal with editors who misbehave and continue to do so despite warmings will yield the same outcome anyway. So, no need to build a Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the regular justice system is good enough. Count Iblis (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This looks like it's post-warnings, post-admin-block. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
"all of the egregious diffs that were provided have been revdel-ed,"
I have no idea if a diff is egregious without seeing it. I don't trust the judgement of a site where saying things like "So-and-so has been subjected to misogynist harassment" qualifies as "an egregious BLP violation"...AioftheStorm (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support site-ban. Tutelary and I have been debating about Skyler Page, where ironically he has been removing information about Page's sexual assault accusations. It seems a little strange that he took the the total opposite side on this debate then he did with Zoe Quinn. What bothers me is not that he disagreed with me, but the way he went about it. I reverted the page twice in 24 hours and said that it was the last time I will revert it. He reverts it 3 times and then has the nerve to warn me for edit warring. I am not saying that I wasn't edit warring, but he was just as guilty of edit warring as me, if not more guilty. I only reverted it twice and said I was stopping there while he reverted it three times. Also he bought up discussions he claimed showed that there was consensus to not include the accusations on Skyler Page; however both discussions were about not including it on Clarence (2014 TV series) and one of them only involved him and one other user. Overall, this seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. JDDJS (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
JDDJS, while I don't think the material in question should be added to Skylar Page, it is indeed distressing to see Tutelary fighting so hard to keep it out, considering his devotion to adding much more poorly supported negative material into articles of women.[21][22][23]--CΓΊchullain t/c 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As someone who was active at the Zoe Quinn article during the time that most of the revision-deletion happened, I didn't find Tutelary to be disruptive. I may not have agreed with their opinion, but for the most part they were good about not violating the BLP policy. The only two lapses[24][25] (admin-only links) were restorations of comments by others on the talk page. I would say that these restorations were problematic, but not problematic enough that they couldn't be addressed by discussion.

    As for other evidence, the revert at Jimbo's talk page was maybe not in very good taste, but it wasn't a BLP violation, and I don't think it violated the talk page guidelines either. Above, Cuchullain claims that Tutelary shows a pattern of inserting, or advocating for inserting, poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of living women. I think that the links that Cuchullain uses to back that statement up ([26][27][28]) show that Tutelary has, in the past, advocated for inserting such material. However, I don't see any actual insertion of problematic material in article space, and in my recent interactions with Tutelary on the Zoe Quinn page they have been a better judge of what constitutes a source acceptable for a BLP than is evident in those earlier discussions.

    Based on the evidence I have linked to in this post, I think that site-banning or topic-banning Tutelary would be an overreaction. I have more sympathy for Tryptofish's proposed talk-page restriction, but I personally doubt that it is necessary. Just the fact that this discussion has occurred will likely make Tutelary be more careful about talk page reverts in the future.

    Now, of course, there is off-wiki evidence involved in this incident as well, but we aren't well-equipped to deal with that kind of evidence here on ANI. The outing policy prevents us from linking much of the evidence directly or from discussing it in detail, so it can never be all that clear what the evidence is that we are talking about. And when we can't be sure that we are all on the same page about what is supposed to have happened, it's hard to say that we can find a meaningful consensus about it. If off-wiki evidence is going to be taken into account, it would be much better to bring this to ArbCom, as they have procedures for dealing with material that could violate people's privacy. β€” Mr. Stradivarius β™ͺ talk β™ͺ 03:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that that's an excellent analysis of the situation. I'm inclined to be persuaded that my suggestion of an editing restriction is not necessary, especially since the editors who are (metaphorically, not literally) calling for Tutelary's head on a plate are making it clear that they will settle for either the head, or nothing less. At this time, a checkuser has indicated that the SPI investigation is going to take a while, and I'm still keeping an open mind in case the results might force a reevaluation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Concern. Tutelary's behavior as I've seen it and others have described it has been questionable and I figured it was a matter of time before that alone resulted in a ban, so I did not think it necessary to comment. However, in the last day or so I've had a growing concern about the larger issue of their allegedly being a minor who works on sexual topic articles and discusses sex online with adults. According to a 2011 Village Pump discussion - Wikiproject Pornography and Minors: Proposals and Discussion - that sort of thing is against Florida law, and maybe more states (and countries) by now.
It's one thing to not know someone is a minor. It's another to have a strong allegation that someone is a minor being widely discussed. Individuals, no matter how unknowing, who later engage in discussions about sex with that minor might be put in jeopardy. Allowing that alleged minor to post really starts setting Wikipedia up for federal/police surveillance and a federal/police sting. (Consider all those ambitious prosecutors out for big head line busts.) And then one has to deal with the snitches from on or off Wikipedia who might be looking for evidence of such 'crime'. Just something to think about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You are using a failed proposal to disallow minors of editing pages related to the Pornography project, as a concern about someone discussing about sex. Please don't mix the two concepts. It is not illegal to have a discussion with minors about sex. Please also be careful in your wording, things like "engage in discussions about sex with that minor" have a completely different possible meaning than what I hope you are trying to say. But in any case, you may be concerned as much as you like, but please don't use unrelated (and failed) proposals to support your concern. Fram (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Tell that to a backwoods Florida grand jury... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Next time you believe something violates Florida law, don't pretend that your believe is something supported by a Village Pump discussion. Combining scare-mongering and false arguments to authority are not a good recipe to come across as a genuinely concerned editor. Fram (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Geez, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? Frankly, I have no idea when discussions of sex with a minor become obscenity or child abuse or child pornography in the law of what state or the federal government. And I bet a lot of others don't either. Obscenity#Child_pornography has a definition sufficiently broad to make one wonder. Child_pornography#Sexting might be broad enough to include words and not just images. Maybe this is an area that needs more coverage on Wikipedia and in some relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I bet a few people here have to think back to interchanges they had with Tutelary that might be questionable in some government officials eyes. Maybe I even do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I did find Online predator had a bit more. "Chat rooms, instant messaging, Internet forums, social networking sites, cell phones, and even video game consoles have all attracted online predators." So I guess the issue would be proving one was not an online predator looking to have sexual discussions with a person known to be a minor who discusses sexual content on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your replies indicate that on the contrary, I wasn't harsh enough by far. Your links to "child pornography" and "sexting" indicate that you really have no idea what you are talking about here (or that you do know and are trolling). It would be in your own best interest if you withdrew and dropped this whole line of reasoning completely. Fram (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I freely admit ignorance of the issue. Feel free to tell me and anyone else who might be confused the best place on Wikipedia to get guidance. WP:Editor assistance? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Everywhere but a topic ban discussion on an individual editor for unrelated reasons. You can try WP:VPP. Considering that the proposal you linked to, which was much more focused than sexuality in general, was soundly rejected by the community, I don't think you will get much support, certainly not when you continue to mix "discussing an article about sexuality" where minors may be joining the discussion, with "child pornography", "sexting", and "online predators". If you have any evidence (or strong indications) of actual online predating happening, you can best take the advice you may find in Wikipedia:Child protection. Fram (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Tryptofish. Whatever Tutelary is in real life, or whatever political or social opinion he/she holds is irrelevant. I have not seen any evidence presented of bad edits which warrant such a sanction. I have read the Essjay controversy page and that does not seem to apply here, by a long shot. Nobody has accused the editor of lying their way to a paid position. And of course, the use of off-site material to convict people here is troublesome. In any case, I am sure a bunch of people will be watching Tutelary's edits like a hawk from now on. Kingsindian (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many people here really cared about the paid position bit, particularly since it wasn't even WMF or in any way wikipedia related.

The concern here on wikipedia, was IMO (and also how I read the article) primarily that editor concerned used their fictitious claims to support their editing here. While many also felt the claims shouldn't have had an influence, this doesn't negate the fact they may have, and that the person concerned appeared be using them with that intention. That obviously has a serious effect on wikipedia.

There were also some concerns about lying to a reporter. That also affects wikipedia somewhat since it reflects badly on wikipedia and wikipedians, and means people may be reluctant to trust wikipedians; and of course we too may have wrong info if we are relying on reliable sources based on such lies.

The second one obviously doesn't apply here, but the first one does. (To be clear, as I emphasised below I'm not saying the claims are fictitious since these relate to identity issues so are much less clear cut. However I find identifying in a certain way you wouldn't otherwise solely for the purpose of advancing one's position equally troubling.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am agnostic on the underlying issue, but I wanted to point out that if this person is banned, we're setting a precedent applicable to other situations. In the discussions on COI guidelines and the new Terms of Use on paid editing it is often pointed out that editors cannot engage in precisely this kind of sleuthing to ferret out COI. If this Tutelary is banned, we would be saying that it is OK to ban a person based on sleuthing, which implies that it is OK to identify paid editors and COI editors through similar methodology. Are you sure you want to do that? Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment My feelings are nearly the same as GRuban. In particular, I would emphasise that I don't care how Tutelary identifies, nor do I say there's anything wrong with them identifying in one place in one manner and identifying in another place in another manner. The problem begins when it appears their identification is intended solely to game the system rather than for other reasons (e.g. genuinely feel that way, to protect their privacy) and that when this combined with all the other evidence both here and elsewhere suggests they're not here to build an encyclopaedia.

    Oh and while I don't think we should generally penalise people for stuff they do elsewhere, in this particular case there IMO needs to be consideration of the allegations suggesting misusing others computers. While it may be difficult to know if these are simply idle boasts, if they are true this has implications for us due to the risk the same may be tried here.

    However while I personally support a site-ban or any other sanctions proposed, I'm not willing to do so here because I'm uncomfortable sanctioning an editor based on material (no matter how strong) that we cannot discuss, and they would have to allow open discussion to repond to. For this reason, I feel the case needs to go to arbcom. As much as I dislike wikipediocracy and such doxing, it's difficult to ignore the implications I raised earlier in a case as significant as this.

    Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where I differ from you is that I don't believe that an inquiry of this kind conducted behind closed doors as necessarily superior to one that is conducted in the open. If we don't allow doxing, how is it permissible to utilize the fruits of doxing that has taken place outside of Wikipedia? I've seen situations in which people have attempted such sleuthing for COI-identification purposes and been threatened with blocking. Yet here we have the target being considered for banning. Could the COI discussion have been moved off-wiki for identification purposes, and then back on-wiki to take steps against he editor in question? There needs to be a consistent policy on dealing with off-wiki doxing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
While I appreciate there are connections, I'm personally not that interested in the COI issue. Frankly, I've never entirely agreed with the far harder line against COI we're taking recently (you must disclose in certain circumstances) and basically stopped following the discussion when it became clear that's where it was headed.

Ultimately, I'm not sure if it's useful to get in to long arguments about whether open or closed discussion is superior. The point is that there are many reasons why a person may not want such open discussions about their personal details. All the evidence suggests Tutelary does not wish for such open discussion in this case. Since we can't discuss this evidence without talking in depth about what it says, and preferably linking to it, and since Tutelary can't reasonably respond without permitting people to do so, an arbcom case would be better here.

As I mentioned, I'm not sure what's going on in the COI space but I presume even there it's recognised that we can't resonably ignore information suggesting a serious problem, no matter our disgust as the process used. In some cases, even if the information was obtained illicitly (e.g. by hacking), if it's serious enough it can't resonably be ignored (as happens in real life). I would also hope there is a recognition of a difference between public doxing, which unfortunately happened here; and privately gathering information which is sent to arbcom where it can then be considered with the person given the opportunity to respond without anyone other than arbcom knowing of it come what may. (As mentioned, the person could chose for this to be a public discussion if they desire, with all the implications thereof. I do recognise arbcom hasn't always been a safe pair of hands with info in the past which is unfortunate, so people may consider that.)

While I'm not saying we should encourage such behaviour, I find it unresonable to suggest people are forbidden from searching for info on a person. It's surely something people do all the time both for editors here, and for others in life. I've been done it on occasion for years, for contributors I admire, contributors I have disagreements with and even contributors I myself have little direct experience with. I usually have sympathy when I find a wikipedicracy thread or encyclopediadramatica or whatever, although sometimes it does seem the person made silly decisions even if this doesn't justify what happened.

Either way, I don't think you'll get consensus that I'm wrong or contributing to the problem by doing these searches for personal interest. And I've never intended to use this information for anything and AFAIK have never done so. However if I did happen to find information suggesting a serious issue from a simple search, I would probably have sent it to arbcom and I'm not going to say (and doubt you'll get consensus) that would be wrong.

In a case where a person needs to do much more careful searching and analysis, like I'm pretty sure was needed for the Tutelary case, I do agree it's concerning, even if the info is only going to be sent to arbcom. But the point is I don't think there's a clear boundary between a simple search for personal interest and an intrusive investigation.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussions concerning COI policy/paid editing have fizzled out, but when they were active there was much discussion over "sleuthing" of all kinds to uncover COI and a general consensus that it was abhorrent. In fact it was trotted out by paid editing apologists as a reason to not strengthen COI rules (that there would be the very kind of sleuthing we're seeing here). Re offsite sleuthing to uncover COI, I can recall one specific case that came up on one of the noticeboards and backfired badly on the person bringing it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but as I mentioned, I'm not, and I'm not sure anyone here is encouraging sleuthing to uncover anything anyway. I'm more interested in what we do when information was discovered, perhaps fairly innocently, perhaps not. As I've mentioned, this is a complicated issue but considering the possibilities, I don't think it's resonable to suggest any off-site search which happens to find something, regardless of the reasons for the search (whether it was a fairly innocent search or it was sleuthing) and how it was handled after this info was discovered, is abhorent. Actually I think we already recognise this to some extent. If someone has posted a link to their website onwiki and it still exists & they haven't removed the info, it's not generally considered outing for someone else to repost it. So no one is likely to sanction an editor for outing for posting the website, even if the editor wasn't even aware it was posted before. They may be reprimanded depending on the case and there could also be sanctions for harassment etc, again depending on the case. There isn't even likely to be any reprimand if the person knew it was posted before, but only found this out after the search. (Again harassment and other issues could still come in to play depending on how the website is used.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban - the editor has done nothing to justify a ban. Instead, blocks or final warnings should be issued to transphobic editors who are defending the WP:OUTING of a minor, and are harassing the said minor by dismissing her WP:IDENTITY. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that Tutelary is a minor? Do you imply that Tutelary is trans and that everyone who supports a topic/site ban is "transphobic"? What evidence do you have? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed if that is the claim I take great offence. While I didn't support a ban here, I did say I personally supported a ban. Yet I went to great pains in my answer precisely to avoid any such implication. Even for those who didn't, it's likely some share similar sentiments they just didn't want such a wordy comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban. In addition to my concerns over doxing, I don't see sufficient basis for banning this person for life. Editors that engage in this kind of misconduct should get an opportunity to reform. I don't like the way this originated and I don't like the way people are piling on here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
But who's proposing a ban for life? Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't claim to understand the Quinn story, but if you want somebody banned you should have to come out with clear diffs indicating misbehavior here, not outing/opposition research. I have philosophical problems with the main charges here. To begin with, we have the peculiar situation where many editors are absolutely adamant about rejecting transphobic attitudes that criticize people who pretend to be a different sex by clothing or partial cosmetic surgery (indeed, it is objectionable even to say they are pretending) yet we are supposed to join a veritable lynch-mob when an editor is caught pretending to be another sex through the filter of online conversation. Riddle me that and come back. I also object to what seems like a suggestion by SlimVirgin and others that feminists ought to object to photos of breasts. I think feminists should be free to take on a variety of political positions, especially those compatible with the activities of FEMEN and those of activists in New York and Canada who have won their right to dress (and undress) in public the same way men do. My position on cyberbullying is that the only plausible way to oppose it is to give those subjected to it some extra latitude, bearing in mind that they are under a microscope so we are hearing more than the usual representation of misdeeds. I have seen something like this happen before with Fae, a far better editor subjected to far worse behavior by bullies, and Wikipedia badly failed him; I hope this time we can set a precedent to do better. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a user is violating BLP, and can't be taught the error of their ways, they will be subject to a topic ban or other sanctions. Off-wiki speculations about an editor and so forth cannot legitimately form the basis of on-wiki sanctions, relating to disruptive editing. Either the editor is being disruptive or not - the rest is hot air. All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

It should be noted[edit]

That the people voting for 'support' have -not- substantiated their claims of my apparently disruptive behavior nor other allegations. Yet they keep mentioning it as if something -did- happen. Yes, I got doxxed, and I got a less than pleasant response, some of the people commenting here on this very noticeboard even implicating that I deserved it. The apparent 'disruptive' behavior (along with gross doxxing) was pointed out at Wikipediocracy...with exactly no diffs at all. The only thing that came close was the link to my user activity, which cites that my highly edited pages are evidence of 'dispruptive' editing. Again, there are no diffs or other on site evidence that points to such. Additionally, the people commenting here have not substantiated their claims either, indeed, Black Kite even stated Given the extremely convincing evidence posted elsewhere which implies that he/she knows there's no onsite proof that I've been disruptive. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. You'd be whining even harder if somebody posted the evidence on the wiki, and then we'd have to oversight it all and waste even more of everyone's time. If I was in your position right now, I'd go and write a beautiful, properly sourced, neutral article that had absolutely nothing to do with Zoe Quinn/GamerGate to prove that I could be trusted to edit in keeping with the values of this project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
But that's not what's happening here. You !voted to support the topic BLP ban without a single shred of a diff or evidence on wiki that I've been disruptive. Are you basing your !vote on Wikipediocracy's post where they freakin' doxxed me? And I really wish I could, my heart has been on pace for a couple days now and my blood pressure has spiked, I've been crying and getting emotional as of late and it's plainly obvious that it's Wikipedia that's causing it; even exacerbated by you attributing my concerns to just 'whining', and probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. Tutelary (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be a lesson learned; do not wage campaigns against BLP subjects via a pseudonymous Wikipedia account, or else external forces may act to strip that pseudonymity away. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You've been exposed, elsewhere, for the liar and misogynist that you are. You just don't belong here. Sorry if that doesn't fit neatly enough into the wikirules for you. As for: "Uh, it is all explained offwiki. What happens offwiki stays offwiki." No. Not in Qworty's case. Not in yours. Why don't you just try to preserve a shred of dignity and go away. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 07:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Please be civil. WP:UNCIVIL 72.89.93.110 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be hilarious were it not so embarrassing that we're entertaining a ban proposal on the basis of evidence which, if placed on wiki, would be oversighted away. Can someone just remove the fig leaf and post the article here? Otherwise I'm forced to ask (as a good citizen) what evidence do we have that Tutelary has misrepresented their identity? Obvious you know what the evidence is and I know what the evidence is, but how on earth am I to take a ban proposal seriously where posting the incipient piece of evidence would lead me to have my contributions oversighted or my account blocked? Protonk (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is a shortcoming in the Wikipedia bureaucracy...similar to how identifying conflict-of-interest editors can rub against outing concerns...but one that shouldn't prevent the project from doing the right thing if need be. "I can't link it here, therefore I cannot consider it" is hardly a compelling defense. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It just makes the whole thing asinine. To be clear, I think someone should cowboy up and actually link the piece so we're not just salaciously suggesting that editors google correctly to find a blog that most of the participants in the discussion have already read. And I think the nature of the topic can lead us to forget just how fucking malicious the article actually is. Read the Excrement will happen section and tell me that's anything besides shitting on someone for not leading an appropriate public life. Questions about Tutelary aside (and I think there's an unfortunate parallel to the specious claims from assholes about how "Gamergate is just about journalistic integrity" to our claim that we're all just so worried that Tutelary passed as a woman), there's no defence for that shit. None. And we shouldn't be supporting it here. That's not some bureaucratic inconvenience, it's an expectation that you should be able to write articles on wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymously without some shitheel telling everyone your name, location and how much you like MLP fan fiction. As I mentioned above, I was outed because like TD I wasn't careful with the use of "protonk" between disparate forums and because WR didn't like my opinions about the BLP policy. We can reassure ourselves that there's a stronger "journalistic" imperative at work than merely pissing off some person with time on their hands and an axe to grind about wikipedia, but we're not making a strong case for that by laundering those claims in service of a site ban. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
First, anyone that knows how to search on the interwebs can find the pages in question. One would think in order to be a prolific Wikipedia editor, searching the internet is 2nd nature. Second, we should have a policy based on cases like this, and the many that have came before it. Trolling or pretending to be someone you're not is not new on the webs. BBS boards and Usenet were/are full of that sort crap. Editors should ask themselves if they want that type of behavior to become prolific on this project, without any consequences, because of some circular reasoning about rules. Lastly, of course the editor should be topic banned at the very least, and probably site banned. I would like to see better rules on this project in dealing with this type of situation, no matter who the editor is. But until we do, I guess ad hoc reasoning and common sense should overrule circular reasoning and being forced to look the other way because of ....tongue in cheek pointing to rules. We aren't stupid, are we? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the thing is, I think the notion of "writing articles on wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymously" is getting to be a bit of an outmoded ideal. For a lot of years that has shield a lot of nefarious deeds in this project. Let's put it this way; if a journalist at a reliable source pens a piece on GamerGate or Zoe Quinn or Anna Sarkeesian, that piece has a byline. An actual person has attached an actual identity to their words, and if there is something factually wrong or controversial or anything, Quinn et al can at least point to that journalist and say "hey, that's not right" and offer a rebuttal to a living, identifiable person. What recourse does Zoe Quinn have when someone known only as "Tutelary" accuses her of infidelity and ethics violations? Or "Titanium Dragon", whose contributions to the Quinn article were so egregious that dozens of his edits had to be oversighted. IMO, people like these two speak as they do about others because they do so under a fake name, just a handle on an internet forum. Strip that away, and have them post something that can be traced back to them personally, by name, just like any media journalist, and you may find that they will choose their words with a bit more care. I'm sorry that you yourself got doxxed by the old WR, but that crew, while there is some overlap with WO, was a very different and very nasty beast that attacked people they simply didn't like. WO is more of a vigilante, an Oliver Queen of the Wiki-sphere. The "Excrement" sub-section was a bit of a low-blow, but y'know, when adults are obsessed with tv shows written for 10yr-old girls, I really don't have a lot of sympathy. Being a teased Brony isn't a civil rights issue. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
About using information from other sites: there have been precedents with the Arbcom I believe, with the Phil Sandifer situation, and with the Ironholds and Keifer Wolfowitz case, that off-wiki evidence could be considered in Arbcom cases, but anything with identifying information had to be presented by email. I also seem to remember some kind of policy, which I can't seem to find at the moment, that prohibits posting something that can damage someone's computer. If someone is claiming off-wiki that they are posing as a woman in order to convince users to download something that will introduce a trojan virus into their computer in order to get access to any porn images they may have stored in their cellphones, at the very least, someone should examine that individual's contributions to see if they are safe to leave up. β€”Neotarf (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

While several people supporting the ban have posted diffs I do think they should have been presented when the ban was proposed. One of the key features of evidence is that it should be evident. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few diffs [redact, has dox links] --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 07:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the key features of a ban proposal is that people who are likely to be interested should be notified. Has the gender gap project been notified? I believe Tutelary and Titanium Dragon have both paid them a visit. What about the other talk pages where they have been editing? β€”β€”Neotarf (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Notified Gender Gap project. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm noticing my two edits are being rev-deleted yet my comment on here remains? Can anybody explain why revisions are being deleted (mine in particular), or is it an effort to get rid of dox links like Anthony had stated above? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not sure why this is being called "doxxing". Tutelary's real name has not been mentioned aither here or elsewhere, merely posting made by him at Reddit and hackforums. This, as far as I am aware, is not either doxxing or outing. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to what's up with all the rev-deletions. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
So am I, and I've asked the admin concerned for an explanation. What was rev-del'd was simply links to comments made on external sites. No personal information was mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Doxxing: "publishing personally identifiable information about an individual". You don't consider posting (atleast a supposed) picture of a Wikipedia editor personally identifiable information (and studying place)? --Pudeo' 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"... although our standards of publishing prevent us from releasing certain personally identifying information about potentially underage persons." By your own definition, what Wikipediocracy did with Tutelary is not "doxxing". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't pretend to be silly, a picture clearly showing one's face is personally identifiable, especially given that the university name was released. ("Does anyone know this student?"...) As stated on Mike_V's talk page, the oversight was reviewed and approved by two different oversighters. If you disagree, you should email AudCom. --Pudeo' 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be hallucinating. There is not and never has been any mention of a university or the name of any other institute of learning on that page, and the page does not and never did contain such an image as you describe (see the editor's note). Andreas JN466 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You are right about the school, it was just on state level. However, it did contain a personally identifiable picture. The editor's note in fact states they removed the picture. --Pudeo' 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's just be accurate about this. The post did not contain a picture. The editor's note says, "An earlier version of this post contained a link to publicly viewable photographs (mirror selfies) of Ging287, which he uploaded to an image sharing site five years ago when a teenager. The link was removed upon request by a Twitter user." Andreas JN466 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Earlier versions did contain photos, they have removed it. I have an archive link from when they did. I also am sickened by the fact that they still consider me a male, when I've made it quite freakin' clear that I am not. It's insulting and harassment. Also, it wouldn't be able to be linked anywho for it contains dox information of another Wiki editor. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Come on, we all saw the post. There was a link to a photo page, but not the photos themselves. Andreas JN466 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please double- or triple-check that, Andreas? I read the article fairly soon after it was posted and saw no photo of Ging, but perhaps it was taken down early. Tutelary, could you please email me the archive link? --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 21:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
100% positive on that. Andreas JN466 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary just emailed me the archived version of the Wikipediocracy blog post and it did not contain the photo/s in question. It contained a link to another site that hosted photos. That link has since been removed. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthonyhcole. For your own safety, I would suggest you check your computer for trojans, as there is a user Tutelary on hackforums.net who uses the same name and surname that Tutelary has used on Wikimedia sites, and who explains at some length there how he installs Remote Access Trojans on users' computers by getting them to click on links, open e-mail attachments and so forth. Better safe than sorry. Andreas JN466 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding. Link? (I will run a malware scan. Thanks.) --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 00:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
He is definitely not kidding, and you better use an updated version of Malware Bytes. At the very least. PS: I moved your post so as to keep the thread continuous. Dave Dial (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh Lord. I just saw the IP post #above. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 00:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Dave Dial or Andreas, I've just re-read the links in the IP's post #above and can't see any corroboration for the claim that "Tutelary acknowledges hacking a persons computer and stealing information." I admit I'm very technically ignorant and may well be missing something, but could one of you please explain what those linked pages say about breach of privacy? --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 02:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Try this link, they explain in detail how they do it [29] --5.81.51.98 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 5.81. I think I'm getting it now. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Would a possible sock check be worth looking into? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd say yes. If a checkuser were to determine that it was really Tutelary making that post on Jimbo's talk page, that would change me to supporting a site ban. But it could also easily be a so-called Joe job. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) And it would be worse because Tutelary welcomed Doxelary on talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The welcoming is less a matter of me welcoming a sock (I only have one Wikipedia account) but more a fact of some minor OCD going off. Two red links in a row just annoys me so I welcome them; I get rid of that annoying feeling and I welcome a new contributor to Wikipedia. Win win. Tutelary (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:, why did you hardblock the user indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE? What did the user do wrong in any context of disruption? Additionally, you revoked talk page and email access, which is specifically prohibited per WP:HARDBLOCK unless there is evidence of disruption on those avenues; which there doesn't seem to be. Tutelary (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clear nobody is saying you have socked but given how it is connected it should be looked into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point though I see no harm in checking, you are right it could be a wrong tree but it is just another red flag going off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 is right here. Someone spoofing a user name only to contribute an edit to discuss that user? You (tutelary) don't see how that could be disruptive? When it's your own user name? We don't need pseudo-twotelary's (or knowledgekid88's or knowledgekid89's) running around, I don't think.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I have my assumption of good faith and to the fact that 1. They could be asked to change their username. or 2. I'm not sure of a site wide policy that bans impersonation of very close usernames (in this case I think it was intentional as googling 'Doxelary" doesn't come up with anything, probably lack of good imagination and decided to use my name but change up a letter) and 3. Hardblocking email and talk page when there is no abuse in those avenues is specifically prohibited per WP:HARDBLOCK. I see HJ Mitchell not responding to my query yet editing other pages...admins are to be accountable. Tutelary (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
A sock check on Doxelary would be apt given the individual's expressed familiarity with Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy. I highly doubt it is Tutelary. GamerGate people are discussing this all over Twitter, 4chan, and Reddit. One of them, perhaps one who has a past here, could have easily popped in to comment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Misleading usernames are disruptive and distracting, regardless of origin. If The Devil's Avocado suddenly appeared to participate only in this thread, my opinion would be the same.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I am tempted to start an SPI on this; I have seen stranger things before than a bad hand account. Even if the account isn't Tulary there is a chance that it is one of the usual suspects --Guerillero | My Talk 04:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
And I was more than just tempted. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, this should clear up this loose end if there is any. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Taking note of some editors referring to "the usual suspects", it might perhaps be helpful for them to comment on that at the SPI, but in a specific manner, rather than leaving it for the rest of us to guess about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We should only consider the edits he made to articles here. If assume for argument's sake that all the other allegations are correct, then that's a perfectly acceptable tactic one may use to get a point accross. We can strongly disagree with the point being made, but it's a tactic that has been used many times, often with positive effects. Take e.g. the Sokal affair, or James Randi letting a few of his apprentices pretend to be psychics so that his criticism of the parapsychology field would finally be taken serious (and it indeed worked). If a group of people is right on an issue and Tutelary joins that group, misrepresenting himself and attempting to act as an agent provocateur, then nothing bad can happen. Being right makes the group immune to its positions being debunked. Instead of condemning such actions, we should embrace it. Count Iblis (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I made the assumed that Tutelary is a male only for argument's sake without me personally taking a position in this dispute. Since Tutelary has made it clear that she is a female and she did that also personally to me when she objected to me using "himself" to refer to her above , I need to make clear that unless proven otherwise, Tutelary should be considered a female as that's how she identifies herself. She asked me to change "him" into "her" in the above posting, but I don't think I should do that because above I refer to a hypothetical Tutelary who really is male if one assumes that her critics are correct. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the misogyny that's the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 16:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked you before. Don't call other editors misogynist without good reason. Please be civil. WP:CIVL 72.89.93.110 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the edit where you said: Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it.? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between calling out on abusive behavior and throwing epithets like Joseph McCarthy. --Pudeo' 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you calling an editor Joe McCarthy? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm pointing to the absurdity of Eric Corbett, a total non-misogynist (though frequent equal-opportunity uncivil dick head) being labelled a misogynist and dragged to "arbitration" for frankly speaking his mind at the gender-gap task force, while the seriously misogynist Tutelary and Tutelary's concern-troll mates all-but extinguish the task force by drowning it in their oh-so-civil "men's rights" word-salad. Classic. Just perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's better to stick to the on-Wiki problems. Things like editing disputes, tendentious editing, harassment etc. etc. What Tutelary does elsewhere is neither here nor there, it can only be used as supplementary evidence. If I harass Jews on Wikipedia but in some of these cases you could consider that to be borderline cases of harassment, then me posting on Neo-Nazi forums may be relevant evidence in an ArbCom case to bolster the case against me. But you can't turn this around, a Neo-Nazi can in principle be a good contributor to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? Tutelary and friends with their anti-woman agenda and endless specious crap arguments swamped and trashed the gender gap task force. --Anthonyhcole (talk Β· contribs Β· email) 23:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Godwin? But let me use your analogy this once: In principle, yes. But not if they made unconstructive edits in civil rights activists' BLPs and stressed their supposed ethnicity ("fellow black person here") in community discussions about racism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who Eric Corbett is, but take it up with him, not un-related individuals. Peace. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If disruption at the gender gap task force is the main problem then let's just focus on that problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just close[edit]

Anyone else feel that this all manufactured trolling from 4chan and reddit? All "sides" that have created this appear to benefit from publicity whether it's an obscure indie game developer, washed-up hollywood actor, or single cause advocates looking for attention. I see all the political hot-topic buzzwords being hashtagged with the "controversy" as if they are tied (hint: hacking Apple and privacy violations has no connection to gaming or misogyny or feminism unless your trying to troll those that feel strongly about those topics on 4chan or reddit). Wikipedicracy extended the trolling to WP. Given the reputation of 4chan and reddit and the level of discourse - I'm calling shenanigans and we are all being trolled to pay attention to something that is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of people. Don't feed the trolls. Stop, close and ignore. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, dude? If you can't see the connection between misogyny and gaming, you obviously haven't been paying attention because there's been volumes written about it lately. You think that Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian wanted to have misogynist bile endlessly spat at them just so that they could get more publicity? Those "men's rights advocates" on Reddit aren't trolling - they actually seem to believe that vile crap. Editors who hang out in those forums are bringing it here. Wikipediocracy just exposed what has been getting worse for quite a while. This issue has become a festering sore and will only get worse if it isn't dealt with. Kaletony (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
No, "dude", I see a connection between 16-18 y/o boys that define their view of relationships/girls/sex somewhere between Hollywood fantasy and porn - and the industry that caters to it (Hollywood, porn, gaming). They also cater to their views on violence and crime. The boys act it out on reddit and 4chan, and yes, they are trolling (successfully) if you think "men's rights" is anywhere near reddit or 4chan. Nor is there any non-trolling feminist areas on those sites. I also wouldn't use pathological terms like "misogyny" to describe preformed views expressed by adolescents. These "issues" being flung across twitter are akin to the activists that opposed SpongeBob SquarePants on the basis the cartoon sponge was "gay" and the various "debates" that sprung up. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
MeMills is topic banned from all men's rights related pages and discussions. They are neither an adolescent boy nor a troll. SPECIFICO was just handed an interaction ban with a prominent female editor. They are neither an adolescent nor a troll. Even if your opinion were correct, why would we ignore adolescent trolls? Some editors here are trying to maintain neutral articles about these subjects - why should they have to deal with trolls and zealots? And what difference does it make if someone is trolling by taking an extreme postion or if they honestly believe it? It isn't the ideas that are the problem here, it's the actions. And the actions speak for themselves. Troll or not, people like Tutelary need to be shown the door. Kaletony (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You are missing it. Topics whose notability is derived from reddit, 4chan or wikipediocracy are simply not notable. It's trolling. There is a difference between administering editor behavior here vs. giving voice to trolling from over there. The fact that you equate what happens on reddit, 4chan and wikipediocracy as notable discourse on feminism, misogyny or men's rights is rather disturbing. None of the items you mentioned is related to each other. For that reason trolls, who come here to fight for/against Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian because reddit or 4chan ridiculed them or harassed them is trolling - and unrelated to editor behavior here. Women are harassed all the time and that is a general issue but reddit isn't a particularly different place that deserves special attention. Your local courthouse has public records of every order of protection and it isn't news or noteworthy and they are worse than what goes on at reddit or 4chan or wikipediocracy. Those sites are the adolescent version of IRL harassment and threats. Being on reddit or 4chan or wikipediocracy doesn't add to their claims or notability but if we feed it, it will surely grow. That's all they are known for - adolescent trolling. Conversely, actresses that are already notable that had personal photos stolen is a real issue outside the echo chamber and they had notability prior to the act. If you knew how many photos were stolen from non-celebrities you would realize that the reddit angle is meaningless. In short, editors that bring trolling from those sites in the form of increasing eyeballs to those sites should be dealt with swiftly and the articles dealt with just as swiftly. Editors that behave badly in general are already taken care of. They are unrelated issues as the bringing reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy here is trolling. Your conflation of Specifico/CMDC interaction with anything other than Specifico/CMDC and specifically related to CMDC's gender is a gross mischaracterization and understanding of that interaction ban as well as being unrelated to this discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If you think the things they talk about on Reddit, 4chan and Wikipediocracy have no overlap with Wikipedia then you must wear blinders. Both about those sites and about Wikipedia. Maybe you honestly do think that it's just kids playing around. It isn't. Kaletony (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"The things" they talk about are too broad a characterization to say they don't overlap. Your connection of CMDC/Specifico to this discussion are an example of the problem of feeding trolls. It appears from your argument that because reddit speaks like adolescents about women and feminists and that it is therefore simply an extension of WP's discussion regarding women editors and feminists and all discussions regarding women can be framed in terms defined by reddit. That is not the case as reddit has no notable views on women's issues or notable views on wikipedia. CMDC/Specifico isn't even remotely related and you've offered no connection other than an observation that one editor is female. Reddit doxxing is the internet version of writing a girls address and phone number with "for a good time call Jenny 867-5309" on the high school bathroom. It's very disconcerting and serious to the girl and the school and provides plenty of juvenile gossip and drama as well as serious discussions of harassment at the school appropriate for adolescents but is not notable. Stealing personal photo's and publishing them is a crime. The current high-profile theft case in the news is notable for WP because the subjects are notable, not just because they are salacious or prurient. Salacious and prurient photos are stolen/published all the time, even among adolescents that live for salacious and prurient, and are routinely prosecuted/punished without even a whisper in the news or Wikipedia. But adolescents that have not developed their own identity and live in a world defined by idealizations/stereotypes because they have an underdeveloped sense of self and others, as all children do, is not the place to look for adult characterizations on interactions between various groups. A fourteen year old gamer whose only real-life "adult relationship" with a women comes from a torn out and sticky page he got from his older brother is not the starting point for complex adult discussions on misogyny, feminism or women (nor is their strategy for winning battles in violent video games a starting point for foreign policy). And while a 14 y/o may not be able to distinguish his relationship with that torn-out picture and a mature adult relationship (or his fantasy relationship with Katniss Everdeen with an adult relationship), adults can, and should. Those sites offer no real insight into anything other than the minds of juveniles and transferring it here only makes WP more juvenile. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought we agreed to disagree? Now you're arguing with me about things I haven't even said. Maybe someone else wants to explore your theories about adolescent boys, but I don't. Kaletony (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"Dude", I thought so too. And then you started to argue about "what I think" that I've never thought nor written. Apparently you want Wikipedia to document encounters of non-notable trolling by adolescent boys. We don't need to explore or document any of it, even your pet interests. --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ignore" may work for those who can forget about this matter once it disappears from this page, but it won't help the editors and admins who have spent many hours struggling with these articles and the barrage of new editors. I've never had to use revision delete so many times on a single set of articles before, which should give you an idea of the seriousness of this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: why have you not used sanctions for "biographical content" problems. The rest of us cannot read what you revdel. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am considering issuing topic bans against particular editors under these sanctions if the irresponsible behavior continues, especially since the drama mongering on this board makes it unlikely that it will be able to seriously address this issue. I've already blocked one editor for 24 hours and had to warn another. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I mean "ignore" the topic, as in sanction editors that are flocking here to "cover" reddit, 4chan and now wikipediocracy as if this is the permanent repository of whatever drama they created in those sites. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree that closing this now wouldn't be productive, 4chan is considered by many to be the cesspool of the internet now that it appears that they are involved some action needs to be taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The EU should impose sanctions on reddit, 4chan, and wikipediocracy for stoking unrest on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • As much as it would be very nice if all the nastiness on "teh internets" would pack its childish self up and go away, the obvious reality is that we still have some very serious unresolved issues here on Wikipedia, and consensus has not yet been reached. At the very least, we need to keep this open until the SPI investigation is resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary may be a false flag person created by Wikipediocracy to try to change our policies here[edit]

While I'm of the position that we should assume that Tutelary is for real, address her as a woman because she self identifies that way etc. etc., when we consider imposing restrictions we need to consider all the possibilities here including those that when taken seriously may be insulting to Tutelary. There is the real possibility that someone at Wikipediocracy has created an account named "Tutelary" on different forums who behaves in a politically incorrect way, including here at Wikipedia. When that online footprint is made, that person with his regular moniker then starts a discussion about this "Tutelary" on Wikipediocracy, who he claims to have stumbled into and some research he did uncovered that he is not to be trusted, yet Wikipedia looks like tolerating this person. The goal is then to get this person blocked without going through the regular processes here on Wikipedia. A precedent is then set where evidence posted on Wikipediocracy alone is sufficient to ban someone here. The real target may thus not be Tutelary but someone else against whom Wikipediocracy has a weaker case (or just to have the precedent set for the future if this is ever needed). They would then be holding back until Tutelary is banned here. They will then post the evidence about that other case and we may then end up acting on the Tutelary precedent. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing less plausible than this, is that you were being serious when you said it. moluɐɯ 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary created his account here January 7th 2012. He made no edits until October 27th 2013, but doesn't really start editing regularly until February 2014. Hmmm, no edits for almost two whole years after creating the account? That's kinda odd. When does thsi false Wikipediocracy trail start? Kaletony (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Kaletony (talk) created his/her account on 13 September 2014. But when does Katetony's real trail start? Perhaps this sockpuppet investigation will find out. Memills (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.' I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but it should be interesting if the SPI can find out. Memills (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure if trolling, or... Tarc (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Manning ArbCom case you demonstrated that this is easy to do. You didn't do what you did to subvert the outcome of the case and you made public what you did after the end of the case, but in principe you could have done that. Any system that is not governed by strict rules and principles where subjective judgements, people's gut feelings etc. play an imporant role is vulnerable to be subverted by agent provocateurs. That's why my point is that we must not deviate from the fundamental principle that people should only be banned based on clear on-Wiki disruption. Whether or not Tutelary is really an agent provacateur isn't the point, just that for all we know, this could be the case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I would like to throw out there that Tutelary is actually the MediaWiki software, having gained sentience. I mean, we don't know this *isn't* the case, so we should consider it just in case. moluɐɯ 22:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Well, we can actually rule this out on theoretical grounds, see e.g. here :). Thing is that on the internet it's child's play to create the cyber equivalent of Operation Northwoods. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    That's not fair. My theory is exactly as plausible as yours. moluɐɯ 20:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As long as we're going here, I suppose it's worth pointing out that Count Iblis' argument relies on the controversial claim that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy aren't both operated by the NSA. β€”/Mendaliv/2Β’/Ξ”'s/ 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do'h.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion as to whether this rather convoluted scenario laid out by Count Iblis is correct, but I agree that relying on material posted outside of Wikipedia can be problematic and should be approached with caution. Remember too that if this kind of evidence is to be used to ban people, it can also be used in lesser situations such as COI investigations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In college I smoked so much marijuana one time that I thought David Bowie was god and that he was communicating with earthlings through the track structure of certain greatest hits albums. I encourage those inclined to adopt convoluted theories to keep the hell away from Colorado. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • How do you know the chinese aren't really the ones behind this, @Count Iblis:? Intrepid #GamerGate supporters over at the GamerGate wiki have uncovered evidence of wikipediocracy's shadowy connections to a chinese spy ring. 146.185.183.119 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Three ways this can end[edit]

1. Tutelary is banned for any of the above offense ad everyone goes on their way.
2. This discussion closes as no consensus in which case editors would either apologize to Tutelary or just ignore all that has happened and move on their way.
3. Tutelary is found to have done no wrong doing in which case editors would apologize (At least I hope) for everything that has happened.

No matter how you look at it based on how much feedback this has gotton I doubt that Tutelary will come out of this unscathed somehow, something to think about regardless of the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Either an innocent person has been dragged through the mill at Wikipedia ANI because of a blog at an external site or, if information above is to believed, a beginner 'black hat' hacker, with extremely poor 'OpSec' (Operational Security) has been easily doxed and offered up to Feds on a silver platter for alleged use of RATs, and is facing the sharp end of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because of it. AnonNep (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm saying the following partly in the context of this part of the discussion, and also partly in the context of the subsection above, about the scenario of a false flag. There is a checkuser investigation going on now, and we should let that go ahead and see what it tells us. Until then, I think that we need to keep open minds, and regard offsite accusations with due skepticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Which CU investigation do you mean? This one or this one? -Thibbs (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I was unaware of the second one when I wrote that, but now that I am, they are obviously interrelated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that someone is going around claiming to be female and making use of that deception to gain advantage, if that is what happened. But there are a lot of people who claim erudition, ethnic background and other traits to gain advantages in discussions, and there is no way of verifying what they say unless they provide verifiable personal information. It's one thing for an editor to refer to himself as a female, a physicist or whatever, but people who believe such claims assume the risk that such claims are false or distorted. Perhaps another possible outcome is to educate people on that fact. I don't like the witch hunt atmosphere promoted by this kind of offsite sleuthing, and we have to weigh whether that is more harmful than the misconduct alleged. Tutelary has already been punished by the publicity. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well one thing is that the user could stop saying "as a woman..." to win content disputes and start relying more on references --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Even better, to disregard any such statements by anybody unless their real identity is both verifiable and relevant to the discussion. That's just basic Internet common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Who are you addressing that to? Myself? Other users? Admins? That would be wonderful but it's unlikely to happen. If somebody says "as a woman, I have no issue with a cropped photo of Power Girls breasts being the sole image on her article" then they are clearly using their supposed identity to win the content dispute --5.81.52.138 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I was making a general comment. The question is not that it's bad to be deceptive, but whether Wikipedia can or should "outsource" investigations to uncover deception, as in effect is happening here. What I'm suggesting is that we should judge what people say by the quality of their ideas and not the unverifiable statements they make about themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary[edit]

The plot thickens.

An SPI concluded that user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. Diff. User:Kaletony has been indefinitely blocked. How many other sock accounts this person has is anyone's guess. Memills (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And thickening it even further, please compare [31] and [32]. We obviously have a case of good hand, bad hand socking here, and clear disruption of this ANI discussion. I am about to strike out all of Kaletony's edits here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and now that we have that cleared it is looking less likely that Tutelary socked. In the event that Tutelary did not sock the decision I see rests on the other evidence provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Without getting too WP:BEANSy, there is another possibility, so let's please let the SPI process run its course. But I hope that you are correct, and if that turns out to be the case, a lot of the arguments for a ban are going to look weaker and weaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that all of the original concerns about Tutelary had nothing to do with sock puppetry? That issue was completely tertiary to the discussion. The concerns were about what Tutelary was doing with their single named account vs. what people believed they were doing on completely other sites. The suspicion about a possible sock only developed because a name popped up that was very close to Tutelary's, but that happened after all the arguments for a ban were being discussed. The SPI cleared that one situation, which is nice, but it has nothing to do with the doxxing issues. An SPI can't "clear" Tutelary about anything to do with the original issues. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It can do one of at least two things. It can turn up further reason to be concerned about Tutelary, or it can discredit some of the arguments against Tutelary. (I realize, of course, that there is no way that it can discredit all or even most of those arguments against, although anyone who came to this discussion with good faith concerns about misogyny and who might understandably object to aspersions being cast on their good faith concerns because of a possible SPI result should consider how aspersions arising from an external website might look when the shoe is on the other foot.) I hope that editors who favor a ban, based upon the original issues, realize that a consensus for such a ban, based upon the original issues, has not occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
But a clean SPI relating to a single sockpuppet case has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the arguments against Tutelary that were discussed. By a light-hearted analogy, if the original charge was "someone stole a cupcake" and then somebody shouted their car keys were missing, and we did a search and found who took the car keys, it doesn't prove or disprove anything whether the person stole the cupcake. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that what I said? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to make it bit clearer that any SPI would only help discredit a single specific argument that Tutelary was a particular sockpuppet. That's it. I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
None of this is about the user creating a sockpuppet during the ANI process. How could a user be brought to ANI about something they do during the process. It's about the gaming of the Wiki to promote a sexist ideology and breaking WP:BLP rules --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess some of them don't realize that a consensus has not occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Whoever shouts consensus first wins, don't you know how Wikipedia works? --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The two SPI investigations have been closed and archived. Whoever Kaletony/Doxelary was, it was someone who was trying to disrupt this situation, and it definitively was not Tutelary. So I think one thing that is clear is that this entire case has had an awful lot of interference from people outside of Wikipedia, from start to finish, some of it based, apparently, in good-faith concerns about eliminating misogynistic content, but a lot of it just ugly and disruptive. Another thing that is clear, at least to me, is the complete absence of evidence here of Tutelary having added BLP-violating material in article space. This ANI thread might as well be closed now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Good points, Tryptofish (talk).
" ...whoever Kaletony/Doxelary was, it was someone who was trying to disrupt this situation..." There is currently a sockpuppet investigation to investigate whether Kaldari was "that someone." Memills (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles[edit]

I'll keep it as short as possible. Two editors, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner are harassing Boris Malagurski-related articles, mostly the article about his film The Weight of Chains. Even though these articles are very well sourced (not many articles on Wikipedia have so many references per sentence), they've expressed their dislike and anti-Malagurski bias very directly several times, and are now ganging up to discourage those who actually want to help contribute to Wikipedia in regards to articles on the matter. For standing up for neutrality, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, his friend and on his payroll, accused that I just want to praise him and his work with no criticism, while my main objection is that negative criticism should be well sourced, and that well sourced facts and positive critique shouldn't be removed. In essence, I would like neutrality.

However, whenever I list reputable sources that support any claim, they always jump to say "No consensus!", and thus any serious editing can't be done. Most recently, after I added information and quotes from a review from VICE (magazine), Bobrayner quickly reverted it [33], again citing "clearly no consensus to add this" (not a word dropped on the talk page from him). When I even expanded a review to include more negative criticism of the film, but argued that blog posts can't be considered as reliable sources for criticism, again the screams of "no consensus" to remove the blogger's rants. Pincrete keeps canvassing ([34]) and Bobrayner gladly jumps in whenever needed. This is starting to get very annoying. I've lost my nerve once and engaged in an edit war, I don't want to get into that kind of communication anymore, I would like to see what is it that has to happen so that I can peacefully edit and collaborate with those who didn't come to Malagurski-related articles with an agenda, but with an honest wish to contribute in the spirit of Wikipedia. Editing here was fun when I started, but if I have to argue with people whenever I add reliably sourced content that fulfill Wikipedia criteria, I'm out. If pushing POV, manipulating, canvassing and getting away with it just because some articles are less popular than others is the essence of Wikipedia, please let me know so that I can make my decision on whether to stay. Thanks in advance, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Question from Pincrete, may I ask the time-frame in which this is likely to be heard? I ask as there a very large number of diffs to assemble to answer this properly. Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that anyone will respond. However, if you keep it brief, you'll have a much better chance. Few people will read an excessively long post that details every minor transgression made by an editor. I would suggest you try to keep it to the length of UrbanVillager's post (or shorter). I skimmed over the article's talk page (and a few others), and I'd suggest that you two could probably benefit from content-related dispute resolution, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, a third opinion, an RFC, or asking WikiProject Film for unbiased input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ That's quite a long complaint about a small part of the problem. Let me try to condense the broader story, for the good folk of WP:ANI.

  • UrbanVillager is a single-purpose account whose only work is to promote Malagurski, an obscure filmmaker. Tellingly, UrbanVillager writes promotional content about Malagurski's work before information is actually released to the public. Articles on these films have, historically, contained only positive content - and impressive lists of awards (some of which are impossible to reconcile with real-world evidence), and UrbanVillager will automatically revert anyone who tries to fix it. Just look at the history of The Weight of Chains]. Normally I wouldn't bother much with mere spam, but Malagurski's films make some radical claims about recent Balkan history, and UrbanVillager has tweaked content to suit those claims.
  • The combination of promotional editing, misuse of sources, and radical views on recent Balkan history, can lead to angry comments by various people, although I've tried to remain civil. In a previous attempt at dispute resolution, UrbanVillager insisted that several editors - the folk he has diligently reverted over the years - are all conspiring to malign Malagurski. It's difficult to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
  • The latest problem is about some reviews of The Weight of Chains. UrbanVillager has spent years adding positive wording and removing negative wording and reverting anyone who disagrees; that's his job. In the last few days, two different uninvolved people (Psychonaut (talk Β· contribs) and EdJohnston (talk Β· contribs)) had warned UrbanVillager for editwarring and for "making unilateral changes"; UrbanVillager did it again; I made a single revert, because there was clearly no consensus for UrbanVillager's wording; so UrbanVillager tried asking EdJohnston for support, and when EdJohnston disagreed, UrbanVillager started this thread instead.

bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Response from Pincrete Bobrayner has expressed very succinctly the broader issues, so I will focus on recent events and UrbanVillager's user behaviour, which is, frequently abusive, wilfully perverse, and shows no meaningful engagement with the guidelines or values of Wikipedia (I can provide MANY examples of personal abuse, several of racist abuse many of wilfully perverse behaviour or wilful mis-quoting, but do not do so here for reasons of brevity). I believe this ANI is little more than a smokescreen by UrbanVillager, to hide his own behaviour and to retain WP:Ownership of these pages.

Firstly, I ask that the recent talk page be read (to the extent that you can endure it), here:-[35]. This is talk over less than 2 days (9th-11th Sep) about the 'Criticism' section, of the article. The background is that only 4 days before, both UrbanVillager and myself had been warned against making ANY non-consensus changes to this section of the article (or to one disputed word). On the morning of 11th September, I posted a clear statement that UV's proposed changes did NOT have my consent, and did not appear to be RSs either, here:-[36] nb para 3 of changes panel, 'Where this discussion has got to … 90 minutes later, he replied here:-[37] nb end of para 1 of changes panel 'So, the review goes in the article.' … some 3 minutes later, he made this edit:-[38] which he claims in his edit reason, is 'as per talk page' . This was not ONE controversial edit, but the complete rewriting of the entire section.

When challenged by EdJohnston, later that day, UrbanVillager made the minimum reverts explicitly demanded by EdJohnston, but retaining ALL of the material, which he had sought to insert that morning, some of which - he had every reason to know - was factually wrong about a reviewer whom he wished to disparage, content which he certainly knew did not have consensus. It was at this point that Bobrayner, made the change he did, though I had already approached EdJohnston, asking permission to do so.

UrbanVillager's opening statement contains two - very telling - 'errors', firstly he links to the VICE magazine Wikipedia entry, not to the actual 'review' which I expressed strong reservations about here:-[39], (which one gets to via the VICE site here:- [40] … click on 'details'). Can somebody correct me if this does not appear to be an ad, which is - at best - quoting from a review. Even if I am wrong, was I unreasonable to ask for more than 12 hours overnight between its first suggestion and agreeing to its insertion? Secondly, (on line 4 para 2, line starting 'rants), he says Pincrete 'keeps canvassing ', and he links to HIS lengthy characterisation of the event on the talk page, not to the 'crime' itself here:-[41], (or fuller picture here:-[42]), as for the word 'keeps', I ask UrbanVillager to supply a single other incidence of me making (what could be construed as) inappropriate contact with ANY editor.

I could say much more, the above is a record of only a few days, and not the two years with which I have been (on & off), involved with this page (and to a lesser extent its satellites), any slice of which reveals behaviour by UrbanVillager, which is - at best WP:Wikilawyering and - at worst, intolerable. I am mindful of the need to be brief, so I finish with a simple request, I ask that - as a minimum - UrbanVillager be banned from all Boris Malagurski pages for a period, which will give him the opportunity to prove that his commitment really is to the integrity of Wikipedia, and not to his 'chosen special subject'.Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • A 'broader' point not made by Bobrayner, is that UrbanVillager also creates and contributes to 'Malagurski' pages on either 3 or 4 other Wikipedia sites, from memory, these include German, Greek and Serbian Wikipedia … I will supply proofs if wished.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Dougweller, I hope you don't mind, I've inserted my 'Statement' before your post below.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I took a look The Weight of Chains 2 (now at AfD) and noted it said that production was continuing into 2013. Turns out that was copyvio from [43] - a page archived 3 days before the article was created with the copyvio. Which led me to look at the creator's talk page - User talk:Kepkke which has number of copyvio warnings on it - editor also never seems to communicate, let alone deal with copyvio warnings. No comment at the moment on UrbanVillager. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked Kepkke - too much copyvio. Left him/her an explanation of what to do to get unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, what you have spotted is only the 'tip of the iceberg' of copy vio. Almost the entire synopsis of Weight of Chains, is a copy/paste of various versions of the film's website, or press pack, any meaningful attempt to change it has been obstructed for over two years. We have been 'allowed' to correct the more grotesque errors of grammar or meaning (factions, not fractions, critique when criticim is intended, etc.). Little more.Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the copyvio, I have long been concerned about the waves of sockpuppets and meatpuppets editing in this area. For instance, Bormalagurski = TheWriterOfArticles = WikiMB = KOCOBO = BoΕΎe pravde. UrbanVillager and CinΓ©ma C both share the same hallmarks of sockpuppets - first edits are made very quickly, first turning their userpage into a bluelink, second turning their talkpage into a bluelink, and a minute later diving into a controversial article to revert somebody. Personally, I'm confident that Bolonium is meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet (although on ja.wiki Bolonium was blocked as a sock of Staka, who is in turn blocked on Commons). Joy set out this sequence of socks:
  • Bormalagurski - September 2005 - September 2006
  • BoΕΎe pravde - September 2006 - March 2009
  • CinΓ©ma C - March 2009 - September 2010
  • UrbanVillager - September 2010 - today.
But regardless of that ancient history (checkuser would be stale), UrbanVillager's 4 years of promoting Boris Malagurski is a problem in its own right, when it involves article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. If UrbanVillager would just chill out a bit, I don't think it would be such a problem. On the talk page, I saw Pincrete offer to compromise, and UrbanVillager flatly rejected it. I'd say, try an RFC to develop a stronger consensus on the talk page. In the event that someone disregards consensus, come back here and request a topic ban for the offending party. So far, it looks to me that it won't be Pincrete that we see brought here next time. As far as canvassing goes, I'd say that it's best to post an unbiased message on a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:FILM; this avoids the impression of canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
BobRayner's FINAL sentence above is the key one for me, 'regardless of ancient history … UrbanVillager's 4 years of promoting Boris Malagurski is a problem in its own right, when it involves article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, and so on' . While I understand Bob's frustrations, any evidence of 'puppetry' or COI, is almost inevitably going to be circumstantial (I have no opinion on the matter). However, evidence of abuse of guidelines, personal abuse, and abuse of procedure (of which this ANI case is just an example), is NOT circumstantial. Only yesterday - during a time that UrbanVillager is presenting himself here as the 'victim' - the following interchange took place :-[44]. … note, much of the content of The Weight of Chains 2, was deleted 13th Sept for copy vio, as were several paragraphs from The Weight of Chains main article, for the same reason,- ie almost 4 years after The Weight of Chains received its first copy vio warning here:-[45] Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The 'comedy' continues … UrbanVillager, who says 'Pincrete keeps canvassing' , had the following interchange yesterday :-[46] (from, where UrbanVillager 'pings' Diannaa, 'Diannaa, would this be OK'). This is such an inept and overt action, by UrbanVillager's standards, that I am puzzled as to his motives. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Postdating this so it doesn't get archived into oblivion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
And, speaking of a waste of time - I just noticed Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20140915. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The user Kepkke was blocked a few days ago for copyright violations. This user was previously active in the Balkan topic areas, but I don't recall perceiving him as particularly problematic. Oh well. Anyway, oddly enough, I received an e-mail from an anonymous user today (whom I've never heard from before) telling me that they think that new user RichardWilson78 is Kepkke. The dates seem to roughly match, yet the pattern of editing isn't identical - the new user seems much less timid. It could be an escalation of a grudge because of the block, or it could be an arbitrary accusation, but given the edit warring the new user has been involved in, I'm erring on the side of full disclosure and mentioning it here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at two recent edits, Bobrayner deleted [47] large areas of text with no justification, giving just the pov assertion "not a reliable source". And here is Somedifferentstuff doing exactly the same, with the same lack of justification [48]. These editors should not have remove referenced content in this way. Their talk page "justifications" are equally weak. There is no need for "consensus" before inserting referenced content. The Vice Raindance Film Festival review and, even more so, the Gregory Elich review that were deleted by Bobrayner, to me seem acceptable as sources. I do not see any properly presented discussion in the talk page about why they should be excluded, all I see is are attempts at productive discussion being hammered by some editors, along with repeated (since almost day one of the article) allegations of sockpuppetry or vested interests, but with never any attempt to take these allegations further (they seem to be there just to disrupt and to close down any discussion). The article's current wording also has a lots of weasel in it, it even has that classic, the unspecified "some critics". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, the Elich, which you say is an acceptable source for inclusion in the 'Reviews' section of a film article, 1) is an interview between somebody IN the film and the director, it does not pretend to be a review of the film … … 2) the interview is already used as a reference in the article (inserted by me). So yes, nobody disputes it as a source for what the director and one of the 'cast' say about the filming, they simply don't consider it an independent RS review.
The VICE is currently at RS noticeboard, at the time of writing NO ONE there has come to the conclusion that it is a review, they have all said it is an advert, and it isn't in VICE magazine anyway, it is simply on their website and has no name creditted to it, merely 'VICE STAFF".
There have been NO allegations from me EVER of any editor being a sock - HOWEVER at least twice today UrbanVillager left posts on WoC talk about ME being a sock - bizarrely, I am supposed to be a sock of an editor who has never been banned and who UrbanVillager acknowledges I spent a long time interracting with two years ago when I first started editing (but as bobrayner says earlier, you can't reason someone out of a belief they never reasoned themselves into).
There IS a need for consensus BEFORE inserting material, referenced or not, when the editor in question has been specifically warned the week before against making changes TO THAT SECTION without consensus. The onus for 'properly presented discussion' surely rests firstly with those who wish to insert material, but it is difficult to see what 'properly presented discussion' there COULD be for justifying an interview between two participants in the film as an independent film review.
I don't think we are supposed to turn this ANI into a battlefield, however, I felt obliged to correct your errors. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that "no consensus" cannot be used to exclude valid content, and issuing "warnings" that anything new in a section first needs consensus is not a position that is sustainable. The issue should be whether the source is an acceptable one, but that sort of discussion seems absent - in the talk page there is too much entrenched absolutism (for example, your own words: "The discussion is over because I say there's nothing more usefull to say"). Saying here that "it is not a film review" is irrelevant: the article section is about critical responses, not film reviews; and the source, Monthly Review, while coming at issues from a predetermined standpoint, is a longstanding publications of some stature. The onus is also on those wanting material removed to justify that removal - just stating "no consensus" in an edit summary is not justification. I didn't say that you had made accusations of sockpuppety, but that such allegations have been thrown around the article's talk page since almost day one. Please accept my apologies if my wording inadvertently implied that you had made such accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
However, Pincrete, this looks (and rhymes) rather like someone implying sockpuppetry: [49] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, I believe your first involvement with the 'Weight of Chains' page was yesterday, also (I think) we have never 'met' before. This ANI is looking at allegations (made against bobrayner and myself), of long term behaviour. For these reasons, I hope you will understand why I think it would only 'muddy the waters' for me to respond to you here. I'm sure the ANI will take note of your observations, and if they think them relevant, ask me to comment on them directly. Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made one edit to the article (adding a fact tag against that "some critics" wording I mentioned earlier), and until yesterday I had never heard of this film. I noticed this thread on this noticeboard and decided to have a look. And after looking I feel that your interactions on that article have been very heavy, you and other editors have been really slamming down on the attempts by another editor to add content. I don't actually know whether that content is any good - but I do feel the methods you have been using effectively close-down any chance of constructive discussion, which is not the way things should be, and which is also guaranteed to annoy and antagonize UrbanVillager and make his responses equally unconstructive. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, I am going to ASK you to strike-thru or delete your posts here. You also have MY permission to, at the same time strike-thru or delete my replies, including this one. If you wish (and if I have time), I will communicate through your or my talk page, however, at the moment (probably unintentionally), the effect you are having is probably not constuctive. I will not respond to ANY further posts HERE, not out of discourtesy, but because this is not the place. Thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would I strike through my posts (or any part of them, given that even my accidental implication that you might have made suggestions of sockpuppetry turned out to be correct)? My words addressed the issues raised by the complainant. I don't at all like the title of his complaint, but I think that the core of his complaint - that editors have been "ganging up" to exclude content, and have been using invalid methods to do it - has some substance to it. I am basing much of my opinion on my belief that what I wrote earlier is correct: that just repeatedly saying "no consensus" cannot be used to exclude otherwise valid content, and that issuing "warnings" that adding anything new into a section first needs consensus is not a position that is sustainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Tiptoethrutheminefield said "Bobrayner deleted large areas of text with no justification, giving just the pov assertion "not a reliable source".". I should point out that this content & source was rejected at WP:RSN. Few people would consider that "pov"; with the exception of UrbanVillager, for whom any edit is vandalism by definition if it tones down his promotion of Malagurski. Some examples: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]
For instance, if somebody says that ""Kosovo: Can You Imagine?"'s prestigious "Silver Palm" award - something he has repeatedly emphasised - was actually one of 76 Silver Palms awarded in the student films category of a hitherto unknown filmfest, that's definitely vandalism, as far as UrbanVillager is concerned. If somebody replaced "Official selection for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"" with "One of thirteen Serbian films selected for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"", you'd better believe that's vandalism too, just as much as the words "film student" are vandalism if they appear anywhere near Malagurski's name. UrbanVillager is always reverting "vandalism". Even airbrushed resume on the website that Malagurski's mommy set up for him had words like "intern" and "telemarketing", but our articles - several of our articles - present him solely as a master filmmaker. At some point in the future, the community will be able to fix these widespread breaches of WP:V and WP:NPOV; but that can only happen after UrbanVillager (and socks) stop reverting, or the ability to revert is taken away from them. bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The above comments by Bobrayner should further convince us of UrbanVillager's complaint. Firstly, those large areas of text Bobrayner refers to were deleted within hours of Pincrete initiating the RS noticeboard discussion [71] over one source. No waiting-time was given for the issue to be discussed. Secondly, there has been no rejection of the Monthly Review source because no RS discussion about it has been initiated. Thirdly, of the five editors who have commented to date on the RS discussion for the Vice source, three of them are Bobrayner, Pincrete, and Somedifferentstuff - editors who already wanted to remove the material from the article. The point of bringing things to the RS noticeboard is to get NEW opinions from uninvolved editors, so Bobrayner has no justification in claiming above that the source has been "rejected". It seems to me to be more evidence that UrbanVillager's allegation of editors "ganging up" to exclude content is justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
When several editors disagree with UrbanVillager's edits - not just the editors you've listed here, but also folk like Joy, Potočnik, Opbeith, Peacemaker67 &c - conspiracy is not the most likely explanation, and constant reverting is not the best solution. bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Re: Bobrayner's 'conspiracy' post immediately above. At the time I was first accused of being a co-conspirator, I had not even read, edited or 'talked on' 3 of the 4 pages I am alleged to be conspiring to distort. For UrbanVillager to make such a mistake once, might be forgivable, to repeat it on several ANI's therafter (without notifying me) seems somewhat careless at the least, to never attempt to apologise for or withdraw the accusation is … … … well, what we have all (unfortunately) come to expect from him. Here:-[72]. Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Minor correction to Bobrayner … the film he mentions, was one of 14 winners in the Student's films category, one of 76 overall, and after several very long, hard battles by myself and other editors, the text NOW does say 'one of several winners in Student films category', UrbanVillager has never agreed to this change, but has not - so far - reverted it. … … however other 'festivals', do still seem to be of very questionable note-worthiness, and questionably referenced. These include Ann Arbor Docufest,(until recently described as 'Official Selection, 2011 - for "The Weight of Chains" at the Ann Arbor Docu Fest' [73] which when I eventually tracked down the 'long dead ref.', turns out to be a free monday evening showing at the "Cafe Ambrosia':-Ann Arbor Docu Fest: The Weight of Chains at Cafe Ambrosia, with little evidence that this was meaningfully, a film festival. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) … … further minor correction, it was PRODUCER, not Peacemaker who was accused of 'conspiracy' alongside myself and the others Bobrayner mentions. added by : Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Minor correction to Tiptoethrutheminefield I've left no agree/disagree 'comment' on the RS noticeboard, I HAVE left a response to your post, (which you might think is the same). I have also invited EVERY editor (whether they seemed to agree with me or not) to leave a post there. Even if you ignore bobrayner and myself, can you not see that the other 3 are experienced, independent editors making rational arguments, based on WP policy and guidelines? … … the first two (time-wise) of these were WHOLLY independent, then BR, then SDS (very recently involved with this page), then yourself, then my comment … if that isn't us trying to get 'outside opinion' in a neutral way, I don't know what is. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, I have NO reason to believe that your interventions are other than well meant, but I repeat my REFUSAL to go into any defence of my behaviour to you here, for reasons I have already given. If you had been involved with the page, I would happily do so.
On a simple factual matter however, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the text on WoC on the day this complaint was filed, had been inserted by UrbanVillager. The other 8-10 involved editors in the last two years, have managed to slightly amend the rest, (all of it done neutrally, as far as possible). Of that 70-90 percent, a VERY large proportion, is copy-pasted from publicity material created by the film maker, and has NEVER had the agreement of the majority of current or past editors. I myself attempted recently to initiate discussion of the present synopsis, here:-[74], this itself is returning to discussions of two years ago, pointing out that the present synopsis is little more than a 'mirror' of the film maker's website and therefore not only copyvio, but inadequate.
I didn't sign up here as an editor to damage the reputation of public figures or their work, but neither did I sign up to assist them (or their fans) in the creation of vanity pages. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor...[edit]

I'm caught between WP:BITE and the trail of destruction this editor seems intent on leaving in their wake. Wikicology joined WP a little over 3 months ago and has since made about 1000 edits, 40% of which are to user talk pages where Wikicology likes to provide "expert" guidance and advice to new and established editors alike. I didn't come across them until their most questionable non-admin closure of this deletion discussion. But scanning through their edit history there are some other concerning things like:

I'm all for enthusiasm but attempting to function as a quasi-admin and getting it so consistently wrong is a recipe for disaster. I'm especially concerned about the idea of a non-admin with this sort of AFD track-record closing discussions (and if the currently-open AFD nominations are anything to go by, that record is progressing in the wrong direction). There's an obvious language barrier there (which makes me even less inclined to bring it here) but we're watching a bad situation get worse. Stβ˜…lwart111 14:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also this on Bobrayner's talk and this on his own. But I've since seen he counts Kelapstick and RHaworth as mentors so in fairness I've pinged them too. Stβ˜…lwart111 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Since I was pinged on this, I'll throw in my 2Β’ worth. My take on Wikicology is that xe is unwilling to accept advice from more experienced editors, and has an unnecessarily belligerent attitude. The fact that xe is active in WP:NPP, and thus interacting with many newbies leads to lots of biting that, on balance, does more harm than good to the project. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That was a spectacularly bad call in closing the AFD. I'll soon be reverting it. β€” Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have given him the benefit of the doubt for this [75] where an article was accepted from AFC in this current state. Admittedly now Wikicology and several others have helped clean up the article significantly, however I still don't feel it should ever have been moved into the mainspace so I took it to AFD. I think a gentle nudge to be more cautious is definitely in order. CaptRik (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am particularly glad with Stalwart111 report here as this will significantly improve my edit behaviour. Let me start by correcting an impression of WikiDan61 that I don't take advice from experience editors, that's very untrue. Who else will I take an advice from if not an experienced editor? Deb is not a bot she is an admin. and I had made several comment on his talk pages. If she find it offensive, am sure deb would have taken a proactive measure to curb it, perharps report me here. It is true that I had an issue with Bobrayner (talk Β· contribs) but i tendered an unreserved apology to him and it was settled. I admit the fact that my comment seemed to be hostile at times and that's usually wit spammers because I found it odd to be polite with spammers. I had no intention to bite new editors. Sometimes I don't even see my comment as a bite. It is easy for Stalwart111 to point out my errors and I will take to correction. It will also be easy for others to point out his error because no one is a perfect editor. But sequel to the above allegation, am ready to takes to correction and it will not repeat itself.Wikicology (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wikicology: Based on the above, and this advice from an editor, I think it might be best for you to refrain from giving advice to editors, even new editors, for a bit and take some time to observe how editors talk to each other here. Your communication style has been somewhat combative, even if you did not intend for it to be so, and even if you feel like your actions are correct. Speaking from my own experience, there is a lot to learn about Wikipedia even within the first year or two of doing so. It's best to accept that you will make mistakes because you are still learning (as am I, after editing for several years), and that trying to argue every time you are challenged is not going to be productive for you looking ahead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't recall any particular interaction beyond this, and this shows as much, certainly not enough for me to consider myself a mentor. Thanks for the ping though Stalwart111. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The edits here and here (noted above) are particularly worrying to me. Lesson 0 of any collaborative project is humility. We don't always know everything and we should all be willing to dial back accusations like those when countered rather than ratcheting them up. For Wikicology, here are some general pointers: When in doubt, don't template people or warn them unnecessarily. There's no need to warn editors that they might be blocked (either directly or via a euphemism) unless you're absolutely sure that A: they will be blocked for that behavior and B: that a warning will potentially deter them from said behavior. This avoids two problems. First, you don't end up biting a new editor and second you avoid having to decide whether or not you have to be "polite to spammers". If someone is spamming a link (especially multiple times) then just revert the edit. If you feel that a revert needs to be explained (and it often has to be), then leave a polite explanation noting the problems with the edit and how to correct them. Next, when someone who is not involved with a particular dispute (e.g. a revert or a comment you've left) raises an issue with your actions, your first step should be to stop and evaluate whether or not they could be correct. There's no prize for being right. You don't need to apologize or promise to correct the error every time someone comments but consider the possibility that they may have a point. Finally, while it is fun to patrol new pages and recent changes sometimes this isn't the best path for everyone. Consider just editing articles or participating in discussions for a while, you'll be amazed at how much perspective you get by merely stepping away from anti-vandalism tools for a while. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think one of the problems here is that Wikicology is new, and trying to fit in. In doing so, they are "borrowing" a lot of phraseology and style from those who they see as "role models", such as those folks they list as "mentors". For instance, many of the phrases used are ones which RHaworth commonly uses, and they are listed as a user Wikicology admires. English maybe not being a first language tends to compound this approach. Unfortunately, because they haven't been here as long as those other editors, or gained the experience and respect which those other editors have, they can tend to use those "borrowed" styles in a way that isn't really appropriate. This can then be miscontrued as "talking down" when I'm sure that's not the intention. I have absolutely no doubt that they mean very well indeed, and can make great contributions, in time, but it would, I think, be wise for them to wait until they have listened to, and actively sought, enough advice before being confident in offering so much. A mentor is someone who has agreed to that role, and to whom one should actively go for advice, rather than just copy. They can explain why they do what they do, and at what times it would, or would not, be appropriate for you to do the same, or how you might approach things differently. Begoon talk 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From the depth of my heart, i thank all amiable contributors for the useful comments. I appreciates every criticism from Stalwart111. Sincerely I feel victimized by Stalwart111 report here. I see it as a deliberate intention to sabotage my efforts. Protonk, I only issued warning when an editor make an unconstructive edit such as adding unsourced content to BLP, obvious vandalism, test edit, habitual refusal to use the edit summary, unjustifiable remover of content etc. I think am right for doing that. However, I don't see anything controversial in the AfD discussion closure that leads to this report. It seemed controversial to Stalwart111 simply because he reacted to every comments that favours keep. From a NPOV, I don't think his reactions to the comments make the discussion controversial. When he discovered that the discussion was closed as keep, he wasn't satisfied simply because his vote was Delete and he decided to take the advantage of the fact that am not an admin. I think his report is not from a npov. He should have waited for a neutral experienced editor to challenge it, perhaps one of those whose vote reflect Keep or editor that never participated in the discussion. But I have no other choice than to assume good faith. Am pretty sure that this report will help my edit behavior to a very large extent, because I now knew where I got it wrong and I will surely mend my cloth where it torn. But I feel victimized with Stalwart111 report. I feel sad as I type! Wikicology (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology, my objection to your closure has nothing to do with the controversy of the topic (it's not controversial). I didn't "take advantage" of anything and my contribution to that discussion is irrelevant. I didn't challenge the result at WP:DRV, I challenged the closure and would have done so if you had closed as "delete" or (really) anything at all. You simply shouldn't be closing discussions. Stβ˜…lwart111 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology, I'm not really convinced you appreciate the criticism because you don't seem to acknowledge the mistakes you have made (which is all that they are to me, mistakes, and they're not a big deal) and instead continue to make accusations about other editors (which is problematic). Maybe it's a language issue, but that's how I read your response. I think the suggestions that Begoon offers above is something you should strongly consider: ...it would, I think, be wise for them to wait until they have listened to, and actively sought, enough advice before being confident in offering so much. Please understand we're not trying to victimize you, but we are trying to lead you down a more productive path because it's clear you have potential and the energy to do good work here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One very trivial example of Wikicology not getting it, but no harm done either. This Tuesday I set out to create Dzanc Books and was met by a message that it had been previously created and deleted as so much corporate spam. I put off creation for one day, and followed the message's suggested advice, leaving a heads-up with the deleting admin, User:Deb. Wikicology left a pointless message, suggesting I use WP:AFC, apparently one of his pet projects. Choor monster (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • thank you I JethroBT and Begoon. I will learn from my mistake and I will make use of every useful advice. Thanks to you all.Wikicology (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe you will. Here's some more advice: Don't copy what other people say or do, word for word - develop your own style and way of doing things. If you're not sure what to do, ask someone you trust. In fact, even if you are sure, ask anyway - it can't hurt. If you don't have people to trust, find some by talking to them. There are lots of people who can help you. Take things slow. When you write a message to someone, preview it, and imagine how you would feel if someone had written it to you. Really imagine that - then write it again, better. You'll do fine. Start with basic things - even formatting, I just fixed all your indents here, for instance; see WP:INDENT. It's lots to learn, and it will take a lot of time. Begoon talk 20:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that spending too much time on the internet, and Wikipedia in particular, does strange things to you. For example, I just filled up Concetta the Corolla with petrol, and notice that the price was $AU 1.337. ZOMG! I thought, it's leet a litre. (Just thought I'd share that with everyone). Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawal of his Rollback Rights will make him a Better Wikipedian: My first encounter with Wikicology was when I voted that one of his article should be speedily deleted (as I frequently give my opinions on Nigeria related AFDs) His response was very fascinating to me because he carefully twisted Wikipedia policies against me. Although he apologized later but since I gave that vote, he continued to disrupt all my articles on Wikipedia. He went further to issue warnings to me on his talkpage.
I believe rollback rights should be reserved for experienced editors with very good track-record. I see no basis for giving him this right, at least until he gets a basic understanding on how the Wikipedia community works. Even though it might look like it, I am not saying all these because of the rift we had but out of my deep respect for privileged (special powers) users on Wiki and I just think him retaining the right is similar to giving a loaded AK47 to a newborn baby instead of allowing him to mature. Darreg (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that ANI is supposed to be where experienced editors contributes to discussion from a WP:NPOV to correct abnormalities based on facts and not on existing criticism. It is so sad that Darreg comment suggest a conflict of interest centered on the past clash we had, coupled with false accusation and allegations. Darreg had created over 50 articles here on wikipedia. He claimed that I disrupted all his articles. From his statement above ...he continued to disrupt all my articles on Wikipedia. I wonder how wikicology will disrupt over 50 articles (without being blocked long ago). I challenge Darreg to provide links, one-by-one to where I disrupt over 50 articles he created on wikipedia. In addition Rollback is an anti-vandal tool. I am glad to say that am an active patroller of both RC and NPP. Since he has comment on my rollback tool which is even out of point, I challenge Darreg again to provide links one-by-one to where I used my tool to make controversial changes or revert and where I used my tool to engaged in edit warring.I think Stalwart111 and other experienced editors will be interested in that. Having admitted the fact that my tone seemed to be hostile and accepted series of advices from different experienced editors, I expected Darreg to come up with useful and helpful comment rather than criticism based on false accusation and allegations. From a NPOV, I don't think this is expected from an editor who claimed a certain level of experienced.Wikicology (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is my first unpleasantry on Wiki. On or about 31 Aug 2014 User:Serten left a message in German on my user talk page (see: "Jetz aber"). I responded at Sertens user talk page in German (see: E CLAMPUS VITUS, usw).
Wickology placed a template "Speak english" on my user talk page and Sertens. I believed Wickiology was some sort of Wiki-functionary. I responded at my user talk page because I perceived Wickiologys user and talk pages to be unfriendly and contradictory. I never received a reply.
Wickiology then placed template "Not a forum" on my user talk page.
I presume Wickiology followed Serten to my user talk page. Prior to 31 August 2014 I never heard of either of them.
I feel Wickiologys actions are in poor form. I concede English is probably not Wickiologys primary language. After reading all this here, I have cause to surmise there is something behind Wickiologys editing other than presumptive ESL. I wish at this time to keep these opinions to myself, and never want hear from Wickiology again.
Help stop climate change here: [76] Tjlynnjr (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC) .
Tjlynnjr, the fact that you are getting it all wrong is now my headache. Perhaps you felt here is a ground for criticisms. Your basis for criticism is illegitimate because I was right for my action. There is nothing unfriendly on my talk page, maybe because I don't communicate in german or any other foreign language you love. On that memorable day, during my usual RC patrol, I found this on Serten talk page and this on Tjlynnjr talk page. Based on my understanding of policy and Per WP:SPEAKENGLISH I believed it was necessary for editors to communicate in english language on english wikipedia so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. To relief me of typing, I templated the both of them. Serten gave a compliment on his talk page. Tjlynnjr apologized that he was not familiar with wikipedia policy. Here is what he said..@Serten: @Wikicology: I apologise. I will also apologise to User:Serten at his page in case he was offended. I have been here at enWiki since March 2008; a fair time, but I am not technically skilled (in this HTML ? stuff, or what ever it is I am doing now) or well versed in Wiki protocol etc. I only discovered the "Ping User" feature a few days ago (August 2014). That is what he said to cut the history short. Serten responded with Wikicology is formal but friendly. Imma mir da Ruah (keep a stiff upper lip ;) Serten (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC). Am totally lost to see the same Tjlynnjr coming here to criticize again. What a life!!! Wikicology (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing this out, Ca2james. It is thanks to people like you that Wikipedia continues to exist, because Wikipedia does not (mostly) get copyright complaints or lawsuits. I have tagged the page in question for speedy deletion. I await an explanation from User:Wikicology. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It was not Wikicology experiencing their first unpleasantry on Wikipedia, but user:Tjlynnjr. The indentation used by Wikicology's for their reply to user:Tjlynnjr was insufficient. I changed it for clarity. - Takeaway (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Copyright issues is not a discussion for ANI. It can only be mention or reported here if an editor continues to violate the policy. If an article meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), it should be tag appropriately and speedily deleted from wikipedia. Thank you so much Demiurge, I respect your ideology. I had decided to be quiet, as a result of blatant criticism and false accusation from certain editors whose comment is not from a NPOV. I can't ignore an editor like you. Regarding your question, that comment was not made by me. It was particularly made by Tjlynnjr above who felt that suggesting him to communicate in english language rather than german is unpleas. As for the AfD/Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye, I don't have any problem with that because it was obvious that the article fails WP:GNG Thank you Demiurge. Wikicology (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit worried about Wikicology's involvement with this AFC, having declined it as promotional and without sufficient establishment of notability. I don't see either of these issues when I read it myself and after a quick search on Google. - Takeaway (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Takeaway you need not to be worried sir. Am uncertain as to weather you had the opportunity to read the declined version. I want to let you know that the author of the draft has been improving it since on 13, August based on my advice. Infact he has also worked on it in the last few minutes today. I am sure that you only read the recent improved version as suggested by the link you provided above which actually pointed to the most recent improved version, contrary to the older version that was declined by wikicology here. In the older version, the first few lines claimed that the subject appears to be the first person to have obtain both MD and Ph.D in economics from university of pennsylvania, a claimed not supported by the references provided for verification. To save our time. As per the notability, the references you saw might appears much and sufficient to you but the majority of the references are primary sources which is insufficient to established notability. Article on BLP must be well-sourced with independent reliable sources. eventualism does not applies to BLP. In addition, if a submitted draft is decline, the essence of doing that is to improve it and the creator can resubmit it after improvement. If you saw some reliable sources on google as you had claimed, you can help the creator to simply adding it and am sure you will be thanked for doing that. Thank you for your comments. Wikicology (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually did read the declined version. As for primary sources, it is not that it is forbidden to use them per WP rules, it is just advised not to use them to prevent editors here on Wikipedia to engage in original research. As far as I could see, the primary sources used in the proposed article, were used only as proof for such simple statements as "Harris has published widely on smoking and health". The whole list of references after this statement is just a list of articles that Harris had written. In my opinion, knowing a bit about who Harris is, and how influential he has been for the formulation of laws regarding smoking, it was hardly necessary. The problem with a person such as Harris is that he is widely known in academic circles and with policy makers, just not with a wider public. As such, there are no easy-to-find quotable articles about his notability. I found that the article that you declined was sufficient for WP. It doesn't need to be perfect. I'm surprised that the editor hasn't given up. I've hardly seen an article where so much of the content is referenced. - Takeaway (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I just accepted the revised article on Harris; I think there's enough evidence he meets WP:PROF. Naturally, there's room for further improvement, as for all articles. I may of course be wrong, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to question the matter at AFD. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • With respect to copyright, I saw the speedy tag on Transcription activators in eukaryotes, and while checking it, I saw the message Wikicology left on its talk page trying to explain why it should not be deleted: Science related articles are different from other articles. They often follow the same principles. A cell is a cell in any source. This misunderstanding of copyright in my opinion is sufficiently fundamental that I do not think this editor should be reviewing articles or AfCs, or advising new editors. I think the privilege to review AfC should be withdrawn, and there is need for a topic ban on reviewing at NewPage Patrol. He clearly does not know the basics himself. The principle is that Competence is Required. As for copyright, I've given him a level 4 warning for copyvio, and I intend to block him altogether if there is another such violation in the future. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I thank all amiable community members who has made one or more comments, advices and recommendations towards the improvements of my edit behavior. However, I beseech the entire community members to please forgive me and give me a benefit of doubt ( not to sanction me with a topic banned on NPP or withdrawn my privilege to review AFC). I have passion for this project. I joined the community with an intention to improve it and not with a motive for disruption. I had been very active ever since I joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday. However, I know that my dream will surely come true. Intense sanction may not allow this dream to come true. This discussion has really exposed me to a lot of things and I will make use of all the advices provided above which I have already put into play and I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy. Wikicology (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wikicology: For Pete's sake, don't even start thinking about being an administrator right now. It's not necessary to be an administrator to be able to effectively contribute to Wikipedia, so please just focus on the advice we are giving you. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you sir. I promise to focus on the advices. Wikicology (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It would seem that Wikicology has used the reasons for deleting this AfD, an article which he had created, and applied it to his reviewing of the AfC of Jeffrey Harris (Economist, Physician) without truly understanding that a very notable academic is not the same as one non-notable academic. After quickly scanning his contributions list I have also noticed that Wikicology in some instances ([77], [78], [79]) reverts edits without understanding that these reverts were not at all contributing to Wikipedia. Edits such as this one where a whole list of exhibitions and projects by the artist were deleted with the edit summary "Cleanup unneccesary section", and this one do not give me much confidence that this editor actually knows what they are doing. Tagging this edit as vandalism, and also warning the editor, was totally unnecessary, especially in the light that said editor was in the process of improving the article. Adding this article for PROD without giving a valid reason. After Wikicology is warned about their actions by RHaworth, they apologise. Apologising after incorrect actions seems like a constant in their behaviour. It seems to me that this user wants to do too much, and too soon, hoping to become an important editor and administrator here on Wikipedia as quickly as possible. - Takeaway (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In this thread as well as the past examples Takeaway points out, I only see generic apologies and promises to follow "advice". Not anything specific enough to indicate that they get it and know exactly what they need to stop doing. I've seen this pattern many, many times before with other editors, all of whom may be very well meaning but have no real self-awareness of their limitations nor an inclination to really listen to other editors except when they are threatened with sanctions. So you have someone with only a few months and a thousand edits under their belt thinking they know better than every long time veteran (as evidenced here, as already noted above)... That kind of arrogance rather overrides any good faith intentions to improve the encyclopedia, particularly when it's exacerbated by difficulties with the English language. Really the only thing that makes any difference is topic banning and mentoring, though that typically just limits the damage rather than encouraging actual growth. I just don't see a real prospect for improvement here, just more of the same. And the recently discovered copyright problems should be the last straw. postdlf (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I came across Wikicology a couple of months ago. My thoughts were, this editor has got hold of a copy of "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months". This imaginary tome details the successful techniques one must follow to become a guaranteed administrator within 6 months of starting to edit Wikipedia. It instructs editors to choose an impressive screen name, to do as little actual content editing as possible, and do all that content editing on uncontroversial articles (you don't want to get sanctions or be involved in disputes), to regularly create a few articles (obscure and uncontroversial ones of course), to give out lots of advice, including posting things on users pages (new editors are best for this - they don't talk back) and mentioning Wikipedia and "the project" a lot (if you act like an administrator and talk like an administrator, one day you will be one), to frequent areas frequented by administrators so that you get yourself noticed by administrators (you need to find that special one who will one day nominate you), and to do as much non-administrator administrating on Wikipedia as you can (such as AfDs, etc.). And absolutely never be funny / flippant / sarcastic - there is no place for humor on Wikipedia - it's a serious business. I wonder, what has Wikicology done to make it go so wrong? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They messed up the "new editors are best for this - they don't talk back" part. Anyway, absent a formal proposal for some editing restrictions, we appear to have run out of steam here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Run out of steam"? Everyone agrees this editor has been a consistent problem across many areas. And it looks like yet another copy and paste copyvio was posted by him today, after User:DGG just warned him yesterday, and his response there is just baffling ("I just detected it too."). If you need it formalized, propose site ban as there is apparently no positive reason to permit Wikicology to continue to edit here in any capacity. Or, at minimum, indef block to be lifted only if someone agrees to mentor him (and Wikicology submits to this) and under the conditions that Wikicology is not to edit any articles until he demonstrates to the mentor's satisfaction that he understands how to respect copyright, and that until a consensus at ANI reverses it he is not to post anything in project space, not to review new articles, not to revert or undo any edits by another editor, and not to warn other editors, tell them what to do, or tell them what policy is or says. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The copyvio content was already there before Wikicology started editing the article so indeed it has nothing to with them.
I've read a few suggestions on what actions would be best in this whole matter. I think that User:DGG's proposals here above are sound. I'm not here very often and normally only read this page as a source of amusement (oops) so I have no idea how to proceed with a formal proposal but my advise would be that Wikicology should limit their role here on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future, or be limited, to edit subjects where they they have real expertise instead of trying to be someone who knows everything. After a while, after gaining more knowledge on the inner workings of Wikipedia, they can proceed from there into other fields IF they are so inclined. - Takeaway (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Let us kindly assume that Wikicology will take that recommendation on board (as a suggestion - no AfC reviews, no new page patrolling, no giving advice to others, for a few months), and that DGG will indeed block Wikicology if they see them adding copyvio text again, and that no formal remedies are required. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think before we can assume anything, we need a substantive comment from Wikicology that demonstrates they understand all of this. Not just generic promises and apologies. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Postdlf can you please stop giving a wrong impression of me?. At least you won't take any credit for doing that. Am surprise that you could say here that I added a copyright content to Royal_Adelaide_Golf_Club. I never added any copyright content. I only added references. When I wanted to add the last reference to a particular section, I copied some sentences from the section to confirm the claim on google, there I discovered that copyright content was included in the section (not by me). Because of the nature of my browser, I must save a particular section before the next section. Immediately I save the section (without addition of any content not even the reference I wanted to add) I discovered it was tag for copyvio. by User:None but shining hours. He left a message on my talk page to ask if I wanted to fix the problem. He fixed it and later advised me to always verify for possible copyvio in an article before adding references so as not to give a wrong impression. Now user:Postdlf ran here to say that I added a copyvio content and even talking about site ban forgotten that he was once a new editor. Am not happy with this kind of behaviour. Every member of the community are suppose to behave as one family. Please leave comment that will help my edit behaviour and not comments full of critics.Wikicology (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on the advices provided by various experienced editors above, I had decided and agreed to limit myself to normal edit ( not to review AFC, NP, not to warn editors) for 3 months. This will enable me to learn more about how editors interact as well as learning the basic policy. I also need a mentor to guild and review my works. I thank you all. Wikicology (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems as if this case can be closed. I personally don't think that active monitoring by an experienced editor is needing during this period. Wikicology's latest article looks fine from what I could see: no copyvio and adequately referenced. Yes, there are some grammar and spelling mistakes but that can be easily taken care of in subsequent edits. Standard WP checks on new articles and edits in existing articles should suffice. Perhaps Wikicology could ask someone, once this 3 month period is over, to review their progress and verify that they have not violated anything (easily done by looking at Wikicology's talkpage and list of contributions), and advise them on how to proceed? - Takeaway (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology's self-agreed editing limits detailed above seem acceptable to me as an ordinary editor, as long as that "not warning editors" will also include not going around telling other editors what Wikipedia is or is not, what Wikipedia procedures are, and what "good" Wikipedia editors should do. I hope he comes to realise that people who edit Wikipedia with the purpose from the outset of becoming Wikipedia administrators are probably the worst people to actually be administrators. If Wikicology abandons all hope of becoming an administrator I bet his editing will dramatically improve. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have just reviewed a new article by Wikicology and unfortunately it is a mess. I have given them some advice and 24 hours to clean it up. If it is then still unsatisfactory, it will have to be put up for AfD. I am now very unsure if Wikicology can actually function here on the English Wikipedia on anything beyond very basic level editing such as cleaning up bare URLs. Very, very sorry... - Takeaway (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology has rewritten the article. After I had confronted them with my findings yesterday, that many of the original citations did nothing to support the content of the article and were only used to make the article look reliable, it has gone from 39 citations back to only 5, and it is now reduced to only two lines of text including the lead (see this dif). Wikicology is of course not at all happy with me any more, accusing me of WP:BITE after my message here yesterday evening to keep this thread from being archived, stating that they are a new user so are not expected to know better while still arguing that all of the fluff citations supported the content. This comes from someone who, until a few days ago, was going around Wikipedia "advising" people what and what not to do, and "helping" with AfC's .
Apparently, the self-imposed limit to only do "normal editing" did not, in their mind, entail staying away from AfD either (see their latest contribs). Refraining from giving their views at AfD had of course not been mentioned expressly by other editors here in this thread...
They seem to be incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions. From today's interaction on their talkpage (see User_talk:Wikicology#Your_report_at_ANI): "You said here that the references are too much. I removed them based on your advice. I also removed bulk of the article content. Do you still expect me to includes the references you once condemn?". What I actually said was that the article's content was not backed by the multitude of irrelevant citations and that it should be cleaned up and rewritten. Wikicology seems to just make up excuses as they go along, and deny all responsibility when things go wrong for them. Having now been confronted with this side of them, I can understand what WikiDan61 meant with "unnecessarily belligerent attitude". I had given them the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they would have learned something from all the advice here above and on their talkpage, but now I just don't know what to do any more with someone who exhibits this sort of behaviour. - Takeaway (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack campaign being waged on User-page[edit]

[80] contains a long paragraph telling the reader exactly where to find me, without mentioning me by name, but very nearly - and telling the reader that I am a Sockpuppet.

"Pass a Method (mainly edits religious and sexual topics, has a significant interest in or preference for LGBT topics); recently caught him after he tried to evade scrutiny. Take note that there is only one UK-based Wikipedia editor interested in politics and Islam who misspells the word grammar (that I'm aware of anyway), and that editor is Pass a Method. Misspelling the word is what this editor recently did, and that editor was blocked as a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet (though for far more than simply misspelling the word grammar). Also take note that because Pass a Method discarded his Pass a Method Wikipedia account by using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to enforce a self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020, it is a bit trickier reporting him for WP:Sockpuppetry. Either way, editing in the same exact areas as he did before and so soon after his topic ban and WP:Sockpuppetry, while pretending that he is a new editor, is a violation of the WP:Clean start policy; so he can very likely be sanctioned for that. If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet: Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). Editing religious topics in general, including the addition of anything about Pope Francis (whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him). Editing LGBT articles. Editing political articles. Editing sexual articles. Editing medical and/or anatomy articles. Editing science topics such as the Big Bang article, or topics about black holes; the Stellar black hole article, for example, could be a candidate. Visiting the WP:Help desk. Focusing on leads. Focusing on British topics; using British spelling. Using editing summaries that are meant to deceive. Using Urban Dictionary as a source, whether it's at the Erection article, or, for example, the Roach (smoking) article. Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles."

This is the whole paragraph. I was advised, after I tried to delete it myself, to explain very carefully why I "think" it's about me. ([81]) This was after she had attacked me in an edit summary, [82], stating in the edit summary "your edit summary was deceptive...as usual" (which, on her talk page, you can see she apologises for, and admits, finally, I am not the sockpuppet).

Every fact, from "If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet:" onwards is directly describing me, compiled from going through my edit history no doubt. (Except the bit about the Erection article). I wrote the entire current Boko Haram article. She first confronted me with her allegation over a month ago, while I was still writing it.

  • For proof this statement should be sufficient "Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)" especially the part in parentheses. (I wrote the article without the collaboration of any other editors).
  • Another reason it is clearly about me: I did indeed use the Urban Dictionary as a source on Roach (smoking).
  • Also, I did indeed have Van Gogh's picture of a skeleton smoking a cigarette on my user page, for a month or two, until a couple of days ago.
  • "Focussing on leads" - I have done this lately
  • "Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles"- yes, I do that.

Clearly, she has checked everything I do, and added it to the description, to make sure that readers find me.

I hope this is detailed enough. It's very long, but I was warned to be very clear. I would have thought it was immediately obvious, but 2 or 3 admins have refused to do anything about it, because it doesn't mention me by name. This is presumably all a big joke to them. I fail to see the humour.

One statement should suffice to prove everything I say: "(I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)". If you look at the edit history of the BH article, you'll see what I mean. No one has made any substantial edit to that for months (except a couple of editors who insisted on adding a sentence or two to the "name" section).

Another very specific proof, "(whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him)". I wrote most of the article and did indeed add a mention of the Pope.

And, as far as the attack being unsubstantiated, she has now finally admitted that she thinks it is "2%" likely that I am the sock. The sock cannot spell (one of the defining characteristics she mentions about him, above), and a quick look at his writing provides evidence of a very shaky grasp of the rules of grammar.

I have no idea why Flyer22 chose to target me in this way. She still claims to be absolutely certain that I have edited WP substantially before this account. As I have repeatedly explained to her, I never even found out how to use references before. But anyway, whatever her mysterious personal antagonism towards me, she has not responded to my requests on her talk page to remove it. The last thing she said (on her talk page, after admins blocked me from deleting the userpage attack myself) was that I am not (or only 2% likely to be) the sockpuppet, and that she apologises for attacking me in an edit summary, and that she has nothing more to say to me.

Clearly, she thinks she should be entitled to attack me, out of personal spite, for however long she sees fit, and the the admins who stopped me from deleting it possibly share her view. So I just thought I'd find out if that is indeed the policy, that long-standing editors can hound new editors out of WP if they see fit, out of personal spite (or other personal reasons, I have no idea). The sockpuppet's inability to follow the rules of grammar or spelling make it obvious at a glance that it's not me. I have now wasted a huge amount of time on this issue. I hope it can be resolved without any more fuss, since it is a crystal clear case of a sustained personal attack (and I have no idea what motivated it). I would like the entire section removed: clearly, she has no ability to track sockpuppets, and would simply use the section to put more "cryptic" clues about what a terrible editor and fraud I am.

I asked the editor who protected her userpage after I tried to delete it to get the stuff about me removed, but he repeatedly claims that it's not about me. This is presumably a private joke which I'm not in on. I am disgusted at the way I've been treated, being hounded over an imbecilic allegation, and told that material attacking me is "not" attacking me, by an administrator.

Please do something to demonstrate that WP isn't the shabby little club ([83], an admin cynically protecting his friend's right to attack me if she wants) that it has now started to appear to me as. On this admins page, another editor has stated that I started editing on Sept 10, I notice. What is that about? Ive been editing for months. It seems like there is a campaign against me for some reason (I would like to know why, but it's not important). zzz (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the entire page repeatedly [84], [85], [86] and did not respond to Flyer22's offer. [87] --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Theres definetly a whiff of incivility going on along with vandalism on the user page, im starting to hear a soft woosh woosh. Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Posting an accusation against another editor - even in personal Talk space - is not AGF. It is correct that zzz should not edit Flyer22's user page, however, neither should Flyer22 be using her user page to attack other editors. If there is an issue of sockpuppetry, it needs to be raised in SPI. If there's not enough evidence for a SPI case then the matter should be dropped. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves against insinuation and accusation, that's why we have formal arbitration and remediation processes. Posting these as "scarlet letters" on personal user space creates a situation where the accused has no opportunity for defense. There is no possible good outcome to this; it will inevitably lead to disruption and increasingly heated WP:CIVIL issues between Flyer22 and zzz. It should be addressed and corrected right now, either through voluntary action or a compulsory edit to the section in question. DocumentError (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you didn't edit as Pass A Method then the information cannot be about you. Your attempt to conflate the issue and say that it is about you is worrying and raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. FWIW shabby little club's are some of my favorite places and I have met some of the nicest people that I have known in them. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
While that's true, Flyer22 behaving toward zzz in an accusatory fashion in articles they both edit has to be taken into account within the context of the monologue on her Talk page. Saying things like "your edit summary was deceptive...as usual" in edit summaries addressed to zzz, etc., can only be designed to "poison the well" against zzz. If one wants to believe another editor is a sock, that's fine, don't bring it up in public, though, unless you're prepared to make an accusation in SPI. I frequently see this where an editor is (often justifiably) convinced another editor is a sock but, instead of filing SPI, pursues "street justice" against them by making insinuations in public space in apparent attempts to delegitimize the suspect editor's contributions in the eyes of others. There is no outcome from organizing a WikiLynchMob that could possibly be construed as benefiting the content quality of WP; this is only and serially disruptive. DocumentError (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(mec) There is more at Recreational Drug Use, admin only and more advice. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a whiff of incivility, which I am largely wo blame for, and I regret that. The incivility started when Flyer22 attacked me in this edit summary. I went to CBWeather's page to blow off steam, and she followed me there, and raised her accusations of being a sockpuppet, being detrimental to articles, making deceptive edit summaries, and having a history of diruptive editing, and a personal attacks issue. I very strongly disagree with all of the above, and she provides no evidence. She eventually did apologise for the edit summary, after I had discovered and tried to delete the attack page.

Neil, I didnt notice her offer because it was on your page. I left friendly messages on her page, but there was no reply. In any case, I can't take the offer of removing half a dozen words seriously. Oh yes, and I told her why I was deleting the page.

Marnette, the attack piece claims that I am the puppet. I deny the accusation. I guess you think I am being unreasonable somehow. I do not know why you think this though. zzz (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "attacked me in this edit summary : [88]" zzz (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Either get rid of the lies about me off your page or I will delete it is not "friendly". What are you looking for here? A modification to some text on her user page? if so, I suggest you propose what you want changed. --NeilN talk to me 18:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That was written immediately after I discovered the large attack paragraph. Please read the very polite and fiendly messages after that. zzz (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I want the sockpuppet section removed. zzz (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The section about Pass a method does seem a bit far stretched and all encompassing. I've touched more than one of those bases as have multiple other editors. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
As have I. This essentially describes a measurable percentage of editors on WP; not just zzz. The only possible purpose this could serve is for future use as a cudgel during editing disputes. And, in fact, it appears this is how Flyer22 is using it. Everyone who edits WP should do so unarmed. "Armoring up" before editing an article is not in the collaborative spirit of WP. DocumentError (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to "armor up" in the way that you describe me as doing; if the editor is a WP:Sockpuppet, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia anyway, unless it's a legitimate use of an alternative account; I won't apologize for keeping a lookout for those editors, publicly letting others know to do so, and/or keeping those editors off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that another insinuation that I'm guilty, it sounds a lot like one? And since I'm guilty it serves me right. Or something. zzz (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So the question becomes, are Wikipedia editors allowed to keep a list of known sockmasters and their editing habits on their user page? --NeilN talk to me 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The sensible answer to that would be "if they know what they are doing". She clearly doesn't (and has caused me a load of grief as a result). zzz (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes would be my emphatic answer. But when the editing habits of sockmasters include visiting the helpdesk and editing articles including sexual or political themes does seem to be stretching good faith a fraction. Amortias (T)(C) 18:48, 15 September 2014β€Ž (UTC)
Signedzzz, if I didn't know what I was doing, I would not keep catching WP:Sockpuppets, including Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppets; it was made very clear to you at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page that I have caught many WP:Sockpuppets, and can rarely be fooled by any of them.
And, Amortias, touching one or more of those bases is one thing; touching all of those bases is another. And in my several years of editing this site, editing various topics, I have not come around many, several or even a few British, Islamic-focused editors interested in all of those matters and behaving in those specific ways. The fact that I have not is how I have easily identified Pass a Method time and time again. I will not remove the section in question, especially since I believe that it is helpful to editors. But, like I recently noted on my talk page, I have edited it so that it doesn't seemingly point directly at Signedzzz. As for the rest of this discussion, I have no comment. And this will likely be my only post in this section. If I post in it again, it will be one more time and then I'm done with it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Its the use of several I feel might be part of the issue. If it was rephrased to lean towards the majority or even most of these things that would seem more accurate from how ive read and interpreted your statement above. Amortias (T)(C) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not Islamic focused, by the way) zzz (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) (For the record, the Erection edit was Passamethod, not me). zzz (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Amortias, the whole second half of the paragraph is basically a list of everything I've done. It's an attack piece, pure and simple. zzz (talk) 20:12, Today (UTC+1)

Flyer22 is at it again? Will she ever learn? Caden cool 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Caden, to break my "won't reply again" rule, what do you even mean by that? Whatever you mean, you're wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The list on the user page, User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch, is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. There's no indication that this is material that is going to be used in a timely manner, or ever, for a specific dispute resolution. User pages aren't supposed to have Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. It doesn't matter how accurate it is as a list of the worst editors wikipedia has ever seen, it's a list targeting specific editors. I haven't looked closely at the behavior of the OP here, but the enemy list there is clearly a problem no matter what else happened. There is no imminent use here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew that someone was going to bring up the WP:POLEMIC argument; nope, I don't see it as WP:POLEMIC, and won't see it as such. And your calling it an enemy list is simplifying things dramatically. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course someone was going to bring up WP:POLEMIC. It's a list of editors along with your assessment of their faults, kept for long-term, relating to no-specific-event purposes. It's one of the clearest violations of WP:POLEMIC I could imagine seeing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If you'd kept that junk off-line, then nobody would have to had to deal with this thread right now. That's why this sort of thing shouldn't be on your user page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And I don't agree that it is a WP:POLEMIC violation; my opinion on that won't be changing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You can be as "I can't hear you" entrenched in your opinion as you want; My guess is that any other editor that compares User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch with WP:POLEMIC will come to a different opinion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If you "knew that someone was going to bring up the WP:POLEMIC argument" that seems to indicate you were aware that what you were posting was suspect right out of the gate. At this point the only question that remains is why you insist on keeping this clearly divisive information up? DocumentError (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22. Yes it is an enemy list that you have on your page. You are not fooling anyone. Caden cool 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, disagreeing with you is not playing WP:I didn't hear that. And as for the section being junk, it is not; it is a section that helps to identify highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, quite the opposite of what I interpret WP:POLEMIC to be. And we are dealing with that section right now because Signedzzz did not like my reply to him in an edit summary and took to obsessively posting at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, and then at my talk page; in other words, he seemingly can't let anything go. Once I made the contents of my user page very clear to him, he sought to remove a section that identifies WP:Sockpuppets, when the section does not mention him. Others have pointed out that the section does not mention him and have stated that the section is fine. I couldn't care in the least that you think I should remove a section about highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, especially since any of the listed WP:Sockpuppets would want that section removed.
DocumentError, I knew that the WP:POLEMIC argument would be made because I have several years of experience at this site and know of some of the flaws in arguments that go on at it, including all sorts of WP:Wikilawyering. I don't believe in your "work with the highly problematic editors" rationale. If they show up at an article with a newly registered account or as an IP address and I easily recognize them as past editors, then, yes, I will want those editors gone. I care not if you see it as me trying to control articles. Those editors were blocked and/or banned for valid reasons, and I should not have to state, "Kumbaya, let us all work together."
Caden, and you are not fooling me as to why you've posted in this section (hint, hint, yes, I remember your ridiculous merge proposal from earlier in the year, and don't remember interacting with you at all before that point, which is why your "Flyer22 is at it again" argument above is as ludicrous as that aforementioned merge proposal). Neither is Elaqueate. But do carry on with your attempts to remove the contents from my user page. Even if the specific users are removed, I will readd a section there about WP:Sockpuppets, how to spot them and some of the articles WP:Sockpuppets frequently visit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The section all but mentions me by name, right down to every article I've edited, and "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article". the fact that an administrator supported you until I brought the matter here, is a separate issue. zzz (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I already removed the "main/continuous" part; you know that. And more than simply one WP:Administrator has supported me on having that section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: That the community ask User:Flyer22 to remove negatively-focussed lists of editors from their user page.[edit]

It is clear that this material is not acceptable to the community. --John (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Flyer22 is maintaining, at User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch, a list of editors they have had disputes with, or who have received blocks but are familiar to Flyer22. It contains notes about editors' perceived habits and flaws. Flyer22 has indicated that they won't change their mind on the matter through further discussion. Flyer22's goal of dealing with editorial disruption is a noble one, but they are going about it in a disruptive way.

User pages can only be used for purposes that are acceptable to the community. In the past, publishing privately-compiled lists of editors on a user-page, when that list is based on previous disputes, sanctions, perceived faults, etc. (even when accurate), has been seen by the community as needlessly disruptive. Under "What may I not have in my user pages?", WP:POLEMIC restricts:

Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Flyer22 is free to keep whatever notes they want privately if it helps them in their encyclopaedic work. Keeping it in Wikipedia space, long-term, without regard to any specific or current dispute, only invites needless disruption. Flyer22's list contains non-banned editors who are blocked, and as everyone knows, no block is necessarily forever. The fact that this thread exists demonstrates that these sorts of user-page lists are disruptive to encyclopaedia work, even when compiled with the best of intentions. A user page list is not the appropriate way of dealing with future problems with sockpuppets, and Flyer22 has indicated they are confident "recognising" problems without it. If some of the material on the user page is considered by the community to rise to the level of "Personal attack" then WP:BLPTALK also applies.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I told Elaqueate above (my "21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post), "And as for the section being junk, it is not; it is a section that helps to identify highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, quite the opposite of what I interpret WP:POLEMIC to be. And we are dealing with that section right now because Signedzzz did not like my reply to him in an edit summary and took to obsessively posting at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, and then at my talk page; in other words, he seemingly can't let anything go. Once I made the contents of my user page very clear to him, he sought to remove a section that identifies WP:Sockpuppets, when the section does not mention him. Others have pointed out that the section does not mention him and have stated that the section is fine. I couldn't care in the least that you think I should remove a section about highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, especially since any of the listed WP:Sockpuppets would want that section removed." I also stated above, "Even if the specific users are removed, I will readd a section there about WP:Sockpuppets, how to spot them and some of the articles WP:Sockpuppets frequently visit." Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And WP:Disruptive to have that section? No, not in my opinion. One editor causing a fuss about it because he obsessively posts about matters, so much so that he received a clear warning about that type of posting? No, that doesn't equal WP:Disruptive on my part. But carry on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to post general information. This isn't about whether a single person on your list objects to it; negatively-focussed lists of editors are divisive. This is true regardless of this particular editor and regardless of whether all the editors are "known scoundrels". You have a list that contains more editors than the one currently complaining. And it doesn't sound like you're using the public list to detect sock puppets, because it's based on your private opinions, which you know whether they're on your user page or not. Editors should not be using their user pages as long-standing free-floating personal criminal investigation material.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I am welcome to post what I have posted regarding these highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets until the community deems that I am not allowed to do so. And, no, at the time of this post, I don't see that they have already deemed that...all because of your broad application of WP:POLEMIC. It's broad applications of WP:POLEMIC, like yours, that I see as detrimental to Wikipedia, as if we should not dare publicly speak of highly problematic editors and publicly list ways of identifying them. Yes, I use that list to detect WP:Sockpuppets. And I know of editors who have used it to identify Pass a Method. I already explained in the section immediately above this one why the section is on my user page; I will continue to stand by that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No one could catch the sockpuppet Passamethod with your information, because the vast majority of the information you fraudulently supply is specifically about me, including specific edits I have made. Therefore you make it less likely for sockpuppets to be caught, by deliberately spreading disinformation.zzz (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh again. When you get stuck on something, you really get stuck on something, don't you? And then you ignore any suggestion, such as my "23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" suggestion below, to alleviate or remove your concern. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose with caveat. If the information about those editors is correct and they are not in good standing, then I don't see that it is any different from any entry on WP:LTA. Since three are blocked and one has previous for persistent sockpuppetry, the only one I would remove is Scientiom, who does not appear to be under any sanction. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The main one Passamethod, flyer22 has supplied all of my details so as to convince people that it is me (see above). It is this that is the clearest case of personal attack. I am in good standing and not a sockpuppet, by the way. zzz (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the crux of the matter. The information on her page is about Pass a method, not you; if that data on the modus operandi of that editor and their sockpuppets is accurate, there is no issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but the information about Passamethod on her page is actually about me. It is therefore not accurate because I am not a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
She stated in Passamethod's description "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article". How could this not be about me? And there are other examples, above of things she has clearly inserted about me int Passamethod's supposed biography. In the 2nd half of the para, everything is about me, gleaned no doubt from my edit history etc, except the one edit at the Erection article, which was passamethod. I thought that all this had been well-established already. zzz (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Black Kite, the proof that they are master WP:Sockpuppets is on their user pages/user talk pages. And their WP:Sockpuppets show what type of editing they continued to engage in. As for Scientiom, it's partly my fault that he has no current sanctions. Even though he has been blocked multiple times for WP:Sockpuppeting, as that link shows, I am willing to remove any mention of him from my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of Scientiom only - As this editor is under no sanctions the rest appear to be blocked editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Changed to support per below - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm curious. Are you saying you'd be fine with a person keeping a public user-page list of editors they've disagreed with, as long as those editors had received certain blocks? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    This isn't that list so your question is irrelevant. This is a list of sockmasters Flyer22 has dealt with. Agreeing or disagreeing with a sock's edits is not the point. They're not supposed to be editing at all. --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Of course currently sanctioned sockmasters shouldn't be editing. That's a non sequitur. But this seems to imply that an editor could have a list of people they've disagreed with in the past, prominently displayed on their user page, as long as they're otherwise faced some common sanction. This list doesn't seem constructive for more than warning people to be wary of people using British spelling on articles involving British topics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, warning people to be wary of me, because I am a sockpuppet of Passamethod, apparently.zzz (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The "list" is in fact disinformation, as far as helping catch sockpuppets, because it is (in the case of Passamethod), simply a list of very specific things I have done and am doing, put next to Passamethod's name. This means people will not spot Passamethod, because they will assume it is me. I cannot understand how anything like that could be considered useful in any way, shape or form.zzz (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The information about Passamethod is all fabricated, since it is in fact simply a list of things about me.zzz (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, the second half of the para, with all the specifics: "Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). " and onwards, with one detail about Passamethod added, the "Erection edit". How is tacking on your enemy's information next to a known sock puppet helpful exactly?zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If people interpret the section as simply "be wary of people using British spelling on articles involving British topics" (and I'm certain that no one will interpret it that way), then they are not reading that section properly. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And the "Focusing on British topics; using British spelling." part clearly needs tweaking if it is to stay, since it was not meant to indicate that Pass a Method uses British spelling on British topics, but rather to reiterate that he uses British spelling in general (since he's British). Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you have good motives, I just think that this approach is counter-productive and will only lead to more false positives and avoidable disputes. When sock-puppetry is suspected, file an SPI. If a particularly bad editor has been exposed, file them at LTA. It's cleaner. Publicly profiling editors on your user page may be personally satisfying but I think it's going to burn you and others more times than it will catch anybody. You've also claimed to be almost perfect at detecting subsequent sockpuppets, which somehow promotes less confidence about what you're using these profiles for. Accusing people of sock-puppetry is something that should be done with high levels of active and thoughtful caution, I don't think it should be generalized as fuzzy warning profiles in a user page section. I think you're right to look for sock puppets, but not to risk giving focussed grief to random editors that fit a very general profile. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If I comment on your view any further, it would be me essentially repeating myself. So to spare significant repetition, I will reply this time with "I generally disagree." And regarding "false positives," the only way that a false positive could happen is in the case of Pass a Method, since it is his editing habits that I extensively detailed, and that is only if people don't take the piece on him there into full account. Either way, below (my "23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post), I already offered to remove the part that Signedzzz objects to. Removing the entire section? I reiterate that my opinion on that will not change. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
She is using the passamethod biography, which she simply took from my edit history and is pretending that it is Passamethod, but in fact 99% of it is about me. She uses this to conduct a personal vendetta against me. That is why I brought this matter here. Is it acceptable for her to continue insinuating with completely fabricated "evidence" that I am a sockpuppet? That seems very incomprehensible to me.zzz (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying a user page could say "A certain editor", name every page he's working on and has recently worked on, specify a few particular edits, " is a sockpuppet, so look out for him"? About any editor such as myself, with no evidence of malfeasance? Because that is exactly what the problem is, and why I brought the matter here.zzz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Signedzzz, the content that you object to indeed concerns Pass a Method. But since that section continues to bother you, would you be fine with me restoring it to the condition it was in before I listed articles/topics that you have in common with Pass a Method? Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been chased off WP before several years ago by this same accusation. And I am sorely tempted again, both when you first confronted me with doom and a permanent cloud of near-certainty ("I don't have enough proof yet, but" and "No, I am not imagining things" etc) and again recently. I wonder if I get targeted especially. Your level of evidence for causing this grief & aggravation is basically anyone you don't like (who is UK and visits a very vague set of sites). The information about Passamethod doesn't bother me, as long as it's all about him. zzz (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Wrong regarding the Pass a Method issue, and anyone familiar with Pass a Method's problematic editing knows that you are wrong on that matter. My evidence on him has caught him time and time again. But I'm tired of repeating myself. You apparently don't get tired of repeating yourself, so continue on as you were then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what the community thinks about this. In my honest opinion, you are a worse problem than sockpuppets. Certainly you are as far as I'm concerned. However, I am not qualified to make any specific suggestions about how the community should most appropriately act.zzz (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I'm "a worse problem than sockpuppets." I'm sure that many editors at this site will agree with you on that. *Laughs* Whatever the case, I have removed the content you objected to. Will I add back some articles that Pass a Method has been known to be problematic at? Perhaps. And if I do, don't come complaining to me about it, especially since it is about Pass a Method, not about you unless you are him. You can head straight here to WP:ANI again and see if you get good support for trying to force me to remove something from my user page that you don't like. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as per User:Elaqueate. Since this is a voluntary request of Flyer22, I further move that a Committee of Watch be convened to monitor Flyer22's user space in the event she chooses not to concede to consensus, so as to enable a possible early intervention/mediation into similar future issues before they balloons to the point that an editor feels victimized. DocumentError (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your proposal is laughable; as if I would not adhere to WP:Consensus. Unlike many people at this site who disregard that policy (it's policy, not simply a guideline), I highly respect it and do what I can to uphold it...until new consensus is formed. And as for WP:Administrators or other higher-ups (including WP:CheckUsers) watching my user page, like I told Signedzzz at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, I have a significant number who do; Barek, who full-protected my user page (see here) due to Signedzzz's WP:Disruption, is one such editor. But if you want more people watching it, bring it on. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Community of Watch". Ha. Orwell would be proud. --NeilN talk to me 03:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
can i make a list of people who i need to keep monitoring as my duty as part of the "Community of Watch"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Such pages undermine a collegiate atmosphere of mutual respect and support. I recall cases of admins facing sanctions for keeping similar pages in the past - I'd rather not drag up names ets but other longstanding editors will surely remember. If any editor wants to keep a private list of enemies/toerags/wankers, or whatever, then they can either get pen and paper and write them down, or invest in a computer and make such lists on that - not use Wikipedia for them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per User:Elaqueate. The enemy list of Flyer22 is junk and it has to go. Caden cool 02:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We already established your faulty reason for being in this thread, with my "21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post in the section immediately above this one. If insulting your ridiculous WP:Move request (which was not even an official WP:Move request) is all that it takes for you to "vote" against someone one, I will have to remember to insult any other ridiculous WP:Move request you make; certainly is fun watching you take your petty revenge. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we not turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Save your personal disputes for the right place as you are not making your case look good here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, please do not threaten to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would not be "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" if I honestly find the WP:Move request to be ridiculous and state it as such. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An "enemies list", even disguised as a "sockpuppet watch" list, is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If they're not socks, it's an enemies list; if they are, it's grave-dancing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, any highly disruptive editor that I recognize as highly disruptive is simply an enemy. I could not disagree more. But your opinion is your own. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You could try writing it down and keep it in a notebook then if you are that truly concerned, names do not have to be presented for the world to see online on some list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why these names should not be listed. None of the rationales for why they should not be are valid to me. I don't think these editors should be protected in any way when it comes to identifying their problematic editing for as many eyes that come across my user page. I made the mistake of shielding Scientiom; I won't be making that mistake, or a similar one, again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Problems can be listed at WP:LTA, editing restrictions, SPI, and other community-patrolled pages. And this is only the same sort of "protection" that stops random editors from listing you as a disruptive editor on their talk pages.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Like NeilN pointed out to you above, this is not the same thing as simply listing editors that one personally finds problematic. This is about listing editors who have been indefinitely blocked (in one cased banned) because of their problematic editing and continue to waste Wikipedia's time. The main thing that I take away from your and some others' arguments in this case is protecting these editors from wider exposure (something I address below in my reply to Davey2010). I could not care in the least if an editor lists me on their user page as problematic; my contributions speak for themselves, and so do what transpired with my block cases. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting you should list the editors "that one personally finds problematic" at WP:LTA, editing restrictions, SPI, and other community-patrolled pages. Quite the opposite. Community pages are the best place to list type of material you're outlining, rather than a personal version run by a single editor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that you were not suggesting that. You stated, "Community pages are the best place to list type of material you're outlining, rather than a personal version run by a single editor." I cannot agree in this case; and this is due to the reasons I stated to Davey2010 below. All of the support votes in the world won't be changing my mind on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"All of the support votes in the world won't be changing my mind on this topic" - It's good to know you've solemnly sworn not to listen to the community. Food for thought: the general term for somebody who says they will not listen to community consensus is "not here to improve the encyclopedia". - The Bushranger One ping only 08:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bushranger, stating that I won't change my mind on the usefulness of the section in question, which is what I was doing with my "04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above, is not stating that I will not adhere to WP:Consensus to remove the section. I made clear in my "02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above that I always adhere to WP:Consensus, unlike many at this site. You see, the WP:Consensus policy is almost as disregarded/disrespected as the WP:Civil policy, if not more so. And as for me not being here to improve the encyclopedia, yeah, my wanting to keep highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets off Wikipedia shows that exactly. So do my various barnstars and the discussions regarding them. And the over 200 talk page watchers I have? Yeah, they are all there to keep me in line. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of them respect me as a Wikipedian and/or often ask for my help on Wikipedia matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This kind of list goes agains the collaberative spirit of wikipedia. Lists like this belong in the notebook of a middleschooler not on an encyclopedia. If Flyer22 wants to keep a list he should do it without using Wikiedia's resources or time. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There should be no collaborative spirit when it comes to highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets. If you want to ignore them and/or work with them, you are obviously more than free to do so. But I don't see why others should have to be kept in the dark when it comes to that choice. As for "[l]ists like this belong in the notebook of a middleschooler not on an encyclopedia," that's absurd. Like Black Kite stated above, the list is not "any different from any entry on WP:LTA." And as for "using Wiki[p]edia's resources or time"? Just what resources and time are being wasted, other than this silly thread? Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Is a userpage really an appropriate place to list this?, If you wanna keep tabs on people shove it on your desktop or write it down like normal people. –Davey2010 β€’ (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The good ole "You're not normal" insinuation. Thanks. Makes me feel all special. The point of the list, as has already been stated, is to document not only a type of editing that I engage in (identifying WP:Sockpuppets), which is not much different than identifying on my user page what other type of editing I engage in, but further publicizing these problematic WP:Sockpuppets so that others know who they are dealing with when these WP:Sockpuppets reappear. I am one of the main editors of Wikipedia's sexual topics (whether it's sexual activity, sexual orientation, or anatomy), a field that is highly neglected on Wikipedia and can be quite easily significantly disrupted by any of these editors...without much backup; and all of these WP:Sockpuppet masters have been involved in sexual articles. Because I am one of the prominent editors of sexual topics on Wikipedia, many people who edit these articles or visit these articles at random check my user page and/or talk page. Same goes for my getting contacted by journalists because of my editing of these articles. And I find it to be a good thing when [Wikipedia editors] come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for. But if you and others want to protect these problematic editors, which it seems to me that you do, there is clearly not much that I can do about that. User:Acoma Magic should be proud that he has such defenders. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying you like this list on your user page because it's a good way to share the editor names with journalists? __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
No, and you've glossed over the main point of that paragraph. I don't care anymore what you think on this subject. Not that I cared much to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Since my "journalists" comment can obviously be taken out of context, such as by Signedzzz below, I have amended the wording by adding "[Wikipedia editors]" in place of "they"; the amendment is clear by the brackets. If I had originally put the journalists part in parentheses, it would have been very clear that I mean "Wikipedia editors" by use of "when they come away from my user page." I thought about clarifying the text when you questioned me; now I have. And what I meant by that text is further clarified by the aforementioned link in this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I also added "problematic" on to "editors" in the second-to-last sentence of my "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above to clarify what type of editors I am talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Further clarification on the journalists point here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What a headache. This is why editing comments after people have responded only tends to confuse things further. You didn't even change your overall point. You are still saying you have your user page the way it is partly because journalists sometimes visit it. A pretty goofy point to spend this much time on. If the community decides this is an inappropriate way to use your user page, then the possible high visibility of your page only works against you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There is no need for a sock-smeller pursuivant; SPI is thataway GoldenRing (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The section in question is a waste of bandwidth at best and a blatant and unjustifiable violation of WP:POLEMIC at worst. β€”Rutebega (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Rutebega, I saw your post soon after you made it, but am only just now replying: Wikipedia is not paper. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentatively oppose. For any editors who are blocked, banned, or topic banned, a short description of their editing pattern is appropriate. I choose to keep out of LGBT editing patterns, because I consider MOS:IDENTITY to be put "respect" over accuracy. β€” Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Such information on personal user pages will continue to be misused. New editors will continue to leave in disgust. zzz (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we are getting over protective in wikipedia. If s/he is keeping a list then at least we know they are. It used to be that controlling behaviour was a means to allow good articles to emerge, now it has become an end in itself. No one has to go to his talk page and there is nothing really offence there. Too many cases here are starting to sound like a chorus of demands to bring sinners to the mercy seat in a hell fire and damnation chapel. Black Kite's advise is as far as I would go ----Snowded TALK 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If Signedzzz is insisting that the MO as outlined by Flyer is in fact about him and not about Pass a Method, then maybe he could point out the bits that don't pertain to Pass a Method? Unless it is explicitly established that Flyer's "sock profile" is indeed about Signedzzz then I cannot support an action compelling her to remove the section. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is well-established. In the second half of the section about Pass a Method, from "current/main editor of Boko Haram" (undeniably me) onwards, (see top of this page), it is a selection of things I've done. I haven't edited Pope Francis or Erection, but everything else was me. Eg, mentioned the Pope in the drugs article [[89]]. No attempt has been made to suggest otherwise. It is absolutely blatant and unsubtle, all the rest is about me. And yet when I asked for it to be removed, here [90] for example where an administrator tells me I have "no cause to delete it", I was told in no uncertain terms that it must stay. Hence the accusations of me being a sock, etc, etc, were guaranteed to continue, to the point where I might start believing them myself. zzz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Eg also, my use of Urban Dictionary for the definition of Roach (smoking). The edit history shows it was me, and yet Flyer22 listed it, along with my other activities, under the list of things that would prove an editor to be a sockpuppet.zzz (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If Flyer22 wants to accuse someone of sock puppetree then it needs to go to SPI. This sort of behavior only seeks to reinforce an idea that zzz is a problem, and obviously if you can't pass the duck test or SPI these devolve into PAs. Its time for the old "put up or shut up" portion of DR. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Tivanir2, I already "put up"...times over. And as has already been made clear, all of those editors listed are WP:Sockpuppet masters. And they were caught by the WP:Duck test and by WP:CheckUsers times over. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Put up" means prove with evidence that your allegation is true. I see you are continuing your efforts to prove it by insinuation instead.zzz (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Commentary about present and former editors who are suspected of socking and abuse is better kept at WP:LTA and WP:SPI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per Elaqueate, DuncanHill, Caden, and The Bushranger. To put a finer point on it, the enemies list seems to make Flyer22's user page into a trophy wall ("caught him") and its edit summaries contrary to WP:ES and WP:NPA ("And, sigh, [username] looks very familiar, but appears to be a sock of an editor currently editing Wikipedia (I might worry about him later.)")[91] Lightbreather (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather, people continually referring to the list of highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets as an enemies list are completely oversimplifying the matter. Anyone significantly familiar with these highly problematic editors knows that. You have not seen the type of disruption they are capable of, and neither have a lot of others here voting "support." And that is just one reason that I take your opinions on these matters with a grain of salt. As for my edit summaries in my user page history regarding WP:Sockpuppets, there is nothing wrong with them, in my opinion. It's already clear that I don't agree with your strict interpretation of what a WP:Personal attack is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion doesn't override POLICY. Per the Civility policy re personal attacks and harassment (partial):
Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
--Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So are you going to be deleting the multiple pages/sections you have in your user space with lists of diffs and actions from Sue, Scalhotrod and others?Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather, there is no need to cite Wikipedia policy to me as though I need a crash course in it. It's not just my opinion when it comes to your overly strict interpretations of the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies and that is made clear in that aforementioned discussion I linked to when replying to you minutes ago above. Pointing out on my user page that an editor is a WP:Sockpuppet and/or that I caught that editor as a WP:Sockpuppet is not a WP:Civil/WP:Personal attacks issue. And if I wanted an enemies list on my userpage, it would be far longer than the list containing these highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The vote on the aforementioned discussion is about 50/50, so I don't know if you anyone can rightly call my (and others') interpretations overly strict. That's not clear at all. In fact, one might argue just as well that civility isn't given any serious attention on Wikipedia, and a lot of people are tired of being told to ignore it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I debated with myself on whether or not I should reply to your latest response; clearly, I've decided to reply: I used the words "my opinion" in my "17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" response to you above. And I stated that I'm clearly not the only one who feels that your interpretations of the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies are overly strict; whether it's indicated in the aforementioned above discussion or elsewhere on Wikipedia. And as for the WP:Civil policy being very disrespected/disregarded, I mentioned that to The Bushranger in my "17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" reply above when noting that the WP:Consensus policy is just as, if not more so, disrespected/disregarded as the WP:Civil policy. Because the WP:Civil policy is so disrespected/disregarded, editors here often don't see the point of it. Like I mentioned on my talk page: "The name-calling rolls right off of me, for the most part. Sure, it and other incivility (see WP:Civil), can anger me (the general incivility often does), but it's not often that I'm hurt by any of the words. Being called a bitch, cunt, idiot, etc. is a part of the job here (at least for me). I know that my depression often contributes to me being less than civil (usually when someone is uncivil to me first), but I often try not to be (even when my mindset is simultaneously 'If you are rude to me, then expect me to be rude to you in return.')." Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see nothing wrong with keeping lists of verified sockpuppets on ones user page. Keeping track of socks is hard enough. Now listing none socks I would see as an issue. Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Lightbreather. Lists of users that you've had disagreements with, socks or not, is simply inappropriate. Ansh666 05:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Confused the nub of this dispute is zzz's perceived treatment by Flyer22. Elaqueate, having looked at Flyer22's page, takes issue with the list, as do some other users. I personally don't think it is covered by polemic. To remind other users, the list only contains 5 users, none of whom is currently active, 3 blocked. Flyer22 in my experience edits in areas that are rife with Sockpuppets, and I think this is reasonable. Flyer22 also shows a great understanding of many WP policies, which is very admirable. That said, Flyer22, I think a compromise position would be something proactive -- such as moving the list to a subpage (where it's even less visible) or moving it to a private venue. Not because the list is in the wrong, but because I think it is a compromise position that allows you to take control of the situation and save face. I don't think there's anything wrong with the list, and if it's maintained off-wiki it still has its useful reference value. Lastly I don't think that we have to operate by the principle 'minimum required by the law', removing is a more harmonious measure, and it's causing disquiet to some other users (even if you disagree), and really whether or not it is present won't change that much in terms of your ability to identify sock puppets. So I think voluntarily removing the list before forced is probably the best option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, LT910001 (Tom). It was suggested to me by another Wikipedia editor (via email) that I simply remove the section to reduce drama. I wouldn't see it as so much of saving face, however, considering that it's clear by this thread that my hand is being forced regardless. I might as well stay with this thing until the verdict is handed down. And as for taking the list to a subpage, that would be targeted by misguided WP:Polemic enforcers as well. And as for keeping the list hidden, I noted above that posting it on my user page is about it being there to help other Wikipedia editors know what to be on the lookout for regarding some highly problematic Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I found The Bushranger's argument to be compelling. He wrote "An 'enemies list', even disguised as a 'sockpuppet watch' list, is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If they're not socks, it's an enemies list; if they are, it's grave-dancing." --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
And you, like others, are oversimplifying the list by reducing it to a mere enemies list; I already addressed that with my "17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above. Same goes for reducing it to mere "grave-dancing." Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - That's an enemies list. Keep that sort of stuff on your computer and out of WP space. Carrite (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

The warning I received was concerning these [92] messages, which, after the unfriendly title, were all very polite and friendly requests to remove the attack stuff. The "warner" had omitted to read them. zzz (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Stating "But I suppose it is just a big joke, and, your going to spin it out as long as you can, or until I give up with WP, as I did years ago when someone was convinced I was a sockpuppet." and "Why is it so important to you to continue hounding me? I am not aware of any interaction between us that sparked off your campaign against me." are not very polite and friendly statements. The aforementioned WP:Administrator likened your repeated postings to my talk page (after I all but stated that I no longer want to converse with you) to WP:Harassment because your obsessive postings are similar to that. You need to do better not to post walls of text, especially rambling walls of text. Compared to how I have interacted with you, and how you have interacted with me, your actions are closer to WP:Hounding; I don't see mine as such at all. I left you alone, more than once, as others have noted. And, quite frankly, I am tired of you trying to get me to reply to you. If I don't want to reply to you, then accept it and move on. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You are quoting from the debate that ensued after you followed me to the admin's talk page where I had gone after your abusive edit summary. The warning was for the messages I later left on your talk page after I had been unable to remove the attack piece, and the admin had failed to read. He was no doubt confused into thinking they were all unfriendly by the first one. zzz (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you are not quoting from me at all. You are making it up and putting words in my mouth for some reason, I strongly suspect. zzz (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. The words are there on my talk page. But, again, sigh...to all of your arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You keep trying to make this about me. No further comment. zzz (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
One more comment: I am in good standing, I am not blocked or a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2014β€Ž (UTC)
Wikipedia:Clean_start#Notification_and_permission can you verify that by telling a functionary what the other account was? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. The allegation eventually becomes "true" until "officially disproved", (despite the fact that even flyer22 has admitted that it is not true), which is why I am resorting to this extreme measure.zzz (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get it, you are asking a serious question. If and when a functionary asks me to provide evidence, of anything I have said here, I have absolutely no problem doing so. zzz (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, Neil. Like I just told The Bushranger above, "stating that I won't change my mind on the usefulness of the section in question, which is what I was doing with my '04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above, is not stating that I will not adhere to WP:Consensus to remove the section. I made clear in my '02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above that I always adhere to WP:Consensus, unlike many at this site. You see, the WP:Consensus policy is almost as disregarded/disrespected as the WP:Civil policy, if not more so. And as for me not being here to improve the encyclopedia, yeah, my wanting to keep highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets off Wikipedia shows that exactly. So do my various barnstars and the discussions regarding them. And the over 200 talk page watchers I have? Yeah, they are all there to keep me in line. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of them respect me as a Wikipedian and/or often ask for my help on Wikipedia matters."
As for a battleground, excuse me if I don't take kindly to people making light jabs at me, voting on things against me because of a past dispute, and/or issuing some other kind of flimsy support vote against me. If you jab at me, I will jab back. Often enough anyway (I commonly ignore or don't respond to the drive-by assaults I get to my user page and/or talk page). Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You used your "list", your supposed "skill at chasing sockpuppets" (backed up by your fraudulent user page section) and your Wikipedian friends such as Niel ([93]), to fraudulently make it appear that I am a sockpuppet, and support your other allegations against me. Surprisingly, I didn't respond by going nuclear (as I am sure you wanted, to get me banned), instead I raised the matter here, so you may be forced to admit wrongdoing at some point. I wonder, how many sockpuppets have you chased, as opposed to people you just don't like? zzz (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your characterization of me continues to be flimsy or false. For example, I didn't get my "Wikipedian friends" to do anything regarding this topic. Nor did I ask them to do anything on it. The vast majority of them (meaning my talk page watchers) have stayed out of this dispute. If they were involved in it, there would be a lot more oppose votes above. Some have emailed me about why they won't comment in this thread. I'm not interested in trying to get them to support me on this matter, especially keeping WP:Canvass in mind. If they want to support me, they will. If they don't want to support me, they won't. And then there are the conflicted ones. And you state that you didn't "[go] nuclear." So your obsessive postings, you obsessing about this topic for hours on end and nothing else, and throwing around shady accusations, is not going nuclear? As for me randomly going after people, that is another unfounded accusation from you. I already told you that it is far too easy for me to spot WP:Sockpupppets; I pointed you to this and this case as examples. Similarly, it was easy to recognize that you've edited Wikipedia before your Signedzzz account. There are various other cases of me spotting WP:Sockpuppets. Some involve me reporting WP:Sockuppets to WP:ArbCom because of violations of the WP:Child protect policy; yes, I stay on the lookout for pedophiles and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors as well. Want to tell WP:ArbCom how I've falsely identified such editors? Go ahead; see if they agree with that assessment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you fabricate evidence about people you don't like and then falsely allege that they are paedophiles? That would be a serious crime. Can you actually understand why that is, I wonder? zzz (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have made it perfectly clear all along I have used WP before, several years age, but never found out how to use citations. This does not make me a sockpuppet any more than your other fraudulent evidence does. zzz (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your comment about pedophiles is asinine, and is why I will now cease replying to you. WP:ArbCom has the resources, WP:CheckUsers and other tools, to identify WP:Sockpuppets of pedophiles, especially since the WP:Child protect policy was created because Wikipedia previously had a very serious, very detrimental pedophile and/or pro-child sexual abuse problem. They don't block such editors unless their is solid evidence, often Wikipedia contributions included, that those editors are pedophiles and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors. And I told you before, at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page: WP:Block is not the same thing as WP:Ban. You keep using the word banned in place of blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the correction, Neil; I apologise for the misaimed pronouns. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Should we be thinking about an interaction ban here? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this would definetly help and would at least reduce the amount of battleground behaviour from both editors that appears to be turning up here. I dont think it would address the issue of the original problem though. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If I saw a need for a WP:Interaction ban, I would have proposed it. Signedzzz edits in some of the areas I edit in, and my areas of interest are wide-ranging, so I don't see how a WP:Interaction ban would be best at this point. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If you had politely asked me to verify my previous account to prove how insignificant it was, on account of my edits being so exceptional, I would have obliged and there would have been no problem. Or if you had at least removed the false insinuations from your page. Or if Neil had agreed with me they should be removed ([94]). It seems strange that I was obliged to come here, which helps no one. I feel I have to assume that the plan was that I just give up with WP - which is why I find it hard to see things from your perspective. zzz (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Keeping a list of indef'd users on one's page might be OK but it tends to "feed the trolls". Keeping a list of not-blocked users online and accusing them of being sockmasters or rules-violators in other ways is NOT appropriate. If the user wants to keep that kind of info, he should keep it on a text document on his PC, and consult it when necessary - NOT post it publicly. Not just because "hit lists" are against the rules, but also because such a list likewise potentially "feeds the trolls". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrotsβ†’ 08:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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


John's closure[edit]

Though John and I have been civil with each other these days, it's because of our past disputes (for example, shown here, here and here) that I don't think that he was the right person to close this thread or to remove the section from my user page. There was no indication that I would not remove the section myself; indeed, I made it explicitly clear that I would adhere to WP:Consensus on this matter. The thread is supposed to be a voluntary matter for me, and it should have been left up to me to remove that section, not left up to a person I have been in passionate dispute with. I also think that this entire thread about me should have closed at the same time, so that all of this will assuredly be archived together instead of disjointedly. If it will still all be archived together instead of disjointedly, then okay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also commented on my talk page about the closure. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

More discussion followed here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: six month interaction ban between Flyer22 and zzz[edit]

There is clearly no consensus for an interaction ban. Given that Flyer22 has, sadly, apparently left the project, it may well be a moot point, anyway. LHMask me a question 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

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

I propose an interaction ban lasting no more than six months between zzz and Flyer22. Given their past interactions and comments on this page, I believe that continuing their current course would be harmful to the encyclopedia. I would also like to have it noted that such an interaction ban implies nothing about who is or is not at fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support zzz (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: See my posts in the Discussion section below about this proposal; I very much disagree with it, and don't feel the need to state "oppose" in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. It's a good idea. Caden cool 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm certain that you can't detail why it's a good idea, especially given what I've stated below. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would support these users not writing on each others talk pages or editing each others user pages. Beyond that however I do not support. Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the point of contention in this debate is what Flyer22 has written on her user page. This issue will be resolved by the outcome of the above discussion i.e. allowing her to retain her comments or by obliging her to remove them. I don't see what an IBAN will accomplish beyond that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, Flyer22 has been conducting a smear campaign against me. Secondly, below, she states that she still believes me to be a sockpuppet, still with no evidence. But her beliefs colour her opinions of me and my edits. How does it benefit Wikipedia to have her freely telling other editors her incredibly negative personal opinions about me? Why is it a problem for her, or anyone else, if she leaves me alone?zzz (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
As I have already said, if the above discussion find her comments unwarranted then she will be obliged to take them down. That is not contingent on an IBAN being imposed, however. I also don't think you appreciate the full implications of an IBAN: an IBAN isn't imposed just on Flyer, it is imposed on you too, and you will be effectively barred from editing articles she has heavily edited. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I, personally, would be fine with that, as opposed to having her telling editors on any pages I wish to edit about my supposed flaws, as she did in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, in an edit summary, very recently. That sort of thing does not inspire me to edit. And, assuming she is no longer able to conduct her campaign against me on her user page, I expect that, given her opinions about me expressed here, that she intends to pursue me more aggressively, now.zzz (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that your account is 4 months old and Flyers is many years old this makes your response more understandable. One more reason I oppose. Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
In the Discussion section below about the proposed interaction ban, I make it perfectly clear how little I have sought Signedzzz out; by "sought out," I mean attempted to communicate with him or post obsessively about him to the point that I try to get him to communicate with me. I make it perfectly clear that I am not interested in interacting with Signedzzz in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the dispute is taking place in user namespace, not in main space. If there is any interaction ban, it should be restricted to where the dispute is actually taking place. Boghog (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and echo Jmh649's comments. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Doc James, and MarnetteD. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is with the community's recent infatuation with interaction bans as catch all solutions? They're hard to enforce, easy to game and only resolve matters in very limited cases. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

(@Guy Macon) Sounds like a plan: I made my point, already. zzz (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
To make it official, you should post a Support nonvote in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I already stated, near the end of the Discussion section above, "If I saw a need for a WP:Interaction ban, I would have proposed it. Signedzzz edits in some of the areas I edit in, and my areas of interest are wide-ranging, so I don't see how a WP:Interaction ban would be best at this point."
If Signedzzz edits any area that I edit, and I see it as problematic, you expect me not to revert him? Not to bring up the matter on the talk page? The interaction ban will benefit him because he can then make any faulty edit knowing that I will be prohibited from reverting him. It has been made explicitly clear that I stayed away from him after my posts to his talk page in August, until he made a faulty edit to the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article on September 13, 2014. Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other? I should post to WP:Film or to WP:Med when he edits a film or a medical article in way that I find problematic? The only interaction ban that I see needed between us at the moment is that he no longer post to my talk page...unless alerting me to a noticeboard discussion. And, I of course, would no longer post to his talk page unless alerting him to a noticeboard discussion. I don't want anything to do with Signedzzz and have ignored him various times, while he has continually sought me out, to the point that CambridgeBayWeather likened it to harassment; when that is pointed out, then Signedzzz goes on about CambridgeBayWeather not having all the facts and what he thinks CambridgeBayWeather meant. Would I like for Signedzzz to leave me alone? Sure. But for that to come at the price of him being able visit the Spree killer article, for example, and make an edit there that I'm not allowed to revert? No. But if WP:Consensus is formed on an interaction ban between us, I will adhere to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Continually sought me out". I asked to have the lies about me removed. Then I came here.zzz (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Dif would be useful for "lies about me removed" Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Diff:[95]. See "Pass a Method" section. These are uniquely and specifically about me: current/main Boko Haram editor, adding Pope Francis to Recreational drug use, using Urban Dictionary as a source for Roach (smoking). I wrote these three articles in the last couple of months. (Also, "Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing them", etc). It has been stated repeatedly, above, that adding my details to a purported description of a sockpuppet is a straightforward attempt to convince other editors that I am undoubtedly the sockpuppet in question. Flyer22 also states, above, that journalists view the user page, "And I find it to be a good thing when they come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for".zzz (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Signedzzz when you quote someone else it is respectfulness for those reading what you write to provide the dif of the person saying it so that we can 1) verify the content 2) look at the context Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Those are the lies, though, as you requested, (apart from the bold quote from this page), that Flyer22 refused to remove from her userpage, until I took the matter here. zzz (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
James, what Signedzzz has mainly done regarding me is obsess over me, mischaracterize me, and twist my words; reminds me of another editor that people sought to impose some kind of interaction ban on regarding me (noted below). My "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above is one instance of Signedzzz misinterpreting what I meant. By "And I find it to be a good thing when they come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for" is about Wikipedia editors. Journalists, of course, are not going to stick around Wikipedia to know what to be on the lookout for, unless they are undercover/stealth journalists. Not that I see anything wrong with them knowing of some of Wikipedia's most problematic editors. By mentioning journalists, I meant that I don't mind if, when they contact me, they see my user page and take note of the fact that Wikipedia has had some very serious problematic editors. I will slightly amend my "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" comment. Also take note that Signedzzz keeps going on about a portion of my user page that I have since removed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Amended. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I also think that the following lines are clear: "Because I am one of the prominent editors of sexual topics on Wikipedia, many people who edit these articles or visit these articles at random check my user page and/or talk page. Same goes for my getting contacted by journalists because of my editing of these articles." That was in my original post about journalists and is still there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You only removed it after I complained about it here! The only reason I complained about it here is because you refused to remove it, even after you admitted that you don't think I am the sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You refused to remove it until I compained about it here, so don't pretend otherwise. zzz (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Note another mischaracterization by Signedzzz: Being far less convinced that he is Pass a Method does not equate to "I no longer believe that he is a WP:Sockpuppet." Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So, it was worth continuing to persuade editors and journalists alike that I am Pass a Method because you think that I am a different sockpuppet, now? zzz (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So you blanked his entire user page 3 times because you had an issue with this one paragraph? Also typing all in bold is not appropriate generally. Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Her user page alleged that I was the sockpuppet Pass a Method. I have not read all the rules of Wikipedia, I just assumed that was totally against them, and that anyone would do the same thing. zzz (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22,To make it official, you should post a Oppose nonvote in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, To answer your specific question:
"If Signedzzz edits any area that I edit, and I see it as problematic, you expect me not to revert him? Not to bring up the matter on the talk page? The interaction ban will benefit him because he can then make any faulty edit knowing that I will be prohibited from reverting him ... Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other?"
If my proposal for an interaction ban between the two of you gains sufficient support, that means that the Wikipedia community has decided that you are the wrong person to correct what you believe are faulty edits by zzz, and that zzz is the wrong person to correct what he believes are faulty edits by you. If the proposal passes, you are going to have to realize that nobody is indispensable and trust the other editors to address any faulty edits. As for this "benefiting him", if we assume for the sake of argument that one of you makes faulty edits (I am purposely offering no opinion on that), you should be aware that anyone who gets involved in an ANI discussion naturally undergoes additional scrutiny from administrators and experienced editors afterwords, so it is doubtful that either of you will get away with making faulty edits for long. Again, I am not implying that one or the other of you is or isn't at fault or that one or the other of you is or isn't making faulty edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't need an explanation of what a Wikipedia interaction ban is. The point of my "22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above was to indicate the faults with your proposal. All that you have done, in my opinion, with this proposal is make things worse, and all because Signedzzz obsessively posts about me with all kinds of unfounded accusations, and, sure, I have responded to him frustratedly in this thread because of that. I don't have much of a past with Signedzzz beyond that. WP:IBAN states that I can't even mention Signedzzz indirectly. So commenting on a talk page or posting to a WP:WikiProject about a bad edit that he has made to an article that I watch is out of the question, unless it's WP:Vandalism or a WP:BLP violation. If he edits any article that I edit (for example, any article that I have listed on my user page as having improved or significantly improved, including any WP:Good article), I am not allowed to revert, partially revert or even tweak that edit. And you think that is a solution? It isn't. If your proposal passes, you will have given him free reign to show up at any article that I edit and screw around without any worry that I will revert him. I'm certain that that is exactly what he wants, which is why he is supporting the interaction ban. So that he can, for example, go and have his way at the Spree killer article. I don't even see how WP:IBAN follows the rationale that editors can edit the same articles, but can't revert each other. Even a partial revision can count as a revert, depending on one's definition of a revert.
Have I posted obsessively about Signedzzz? No. Am I interested in going and editing any of the articles that Signedzzz is significantly interested in editing? No. But, if your proposal passes, you can guarantee that he will likely start popping up at just about any article that I edit. I've dealt with editors like Signedzzz before, ones I would categorize as having a harassment and disruptive nature. Signedzzz appears to not even know when he is engaging in harassment and/or disruption. Your proposal will render me powerless to challenge any of his edits. You have given no indication that you looked enough into Signedzzz's editing history to see why I have concerns about his editing. I am well aware that "anyone who gets involved in an ANI discussion naturally undergoes additional scrutiny from administrators and experienced editors afterwords." But as for the topics that I edit? In addition to editing well-watched articles, I edit articles that are not well-watched, including the aforementioned Spree killer article. I was lucky to get this backup from Ianmacm in the case of that article regarding an edit that Signedzzz made, but I doubt that I'll be lucky enough to get such backup in various other cases if your proposal passes. Seems that before your proposal gains traction in passing, I should alert WP:Film and WP:Med to this discussion so that they will know that if Signedzzz shows up at a film or medical article that I edit, I will likely need others to review that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If, as you claim, you don't need an explanation of what a Wikipedia interaction ban is, why then did you ask "Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other?" WP:IBAN clearly states "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to [...] undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
With several years of experience editing this site, and having been to WP:ANI more than once, twice or thrice, as putting the name Flyer22 in a search of the WP:ANI archives show (including a case where an interaction ban was suggested between me and an editor before), why would it be a claim that I know how WP:IBAN works? The question I asked clearly aligns with what WP:IBAN states. And I told you above, "The point of my '22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above was to indicate the faults with your proposal." It is indeed a faulty suggestion, in my opinion, to state that we can edit the same articles...but can't revert each other. So there is no need to try really hard to assume that my question was asked in good faith. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Caden voting again, knowing full well that his votes to restrict what I add to my user page or how I otherwise edit are without valid rationale, has urged me to alert WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:Film to this interaction ban discussion, as seen here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't find the place in Caden's edit history where he urged you to to alert those Wikiprojects. I probably just missed the obvious; could you please show us a diff where he did that? I am not expressing any opinion as to whether alerting the Wikiprojects was or was not appropriate. Or are you saying that the mere fact that he supported a proposal "urged" you in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I meant that Caden voting again due to a past grudge (a grudge I already pointed to earlier in this big thread) urged me to go ahead and seek input from the WikiProjects that are related to this interaction ban. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just so that everyone understands what an interaction ban entails, please review WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The user talk page which you mention claimed that I am a sockpuppet (see above - the subject of this discussion). User:WarriorLut, a new single-purpose account, kept making changes to Recreational drug use, after I had just spent three weeks writing it. He refused to respond to my repeated requests for him to explain his changes, but simply proceeded to continue deleting all of the new material. I did not know where to report his vandalism, so I reverted it each time. I have since discovered where to report vandalism. Your opinions of any pictures or other material in the article should be explained in the talk page of the article. None of the 2-3000 visitors per day have complained as yet - in fact, the number of viewers seems to have approximately doubled over the past 2-3 weeks - see [97].zzz (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Ps, I see from your angry message in the talk page of Recreational drug use, [98], that you don't like the article. However, you did not explain your POV, or suggest any significant improvements. zzz (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Still not providing the diff I mentioned? You could also provide a direct quote of the claim that made by Flyer that you are a sockpuppet.
I provided the diff under your comment above, where you requested it.zzz (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
With respect to viewers doubling look at this [99]
Exactly were is this "angry message" you attribute to me? Can you provide a diff of that to? Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
With respect to "He refused to respond to my repeated requests for him to explain his changes". It was you who was making the new changes and thus need to explain them. He responded here [100] and another user raised concerns here [101] Doc James (talk Β· contribs Β· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
No, he started deleting the sections after I had finished them. No one said anything while I was writing them. And the other user made a comment, which I replied to, and then never responded after that. zzz (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you check the times of his response, they are after all the reversion. He initially left a message, which I replied to (with three messages), then, instead of replying back, he posted a message about vandalism at the top of the page, and started deleting all the new (referenced) sections, with no explanation. He only later said he thought they were biased, but without explanation.zzz (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry I charcterised your message as angry - I misjudged it's tone. I apologise for that. It was just a bit short, and suggested removing the entire lead section, which, as I mentioned, could just as well be added to instead. (And I just noticed that the viewer figures have almost doubled since I added the new stuff to the article, which seems amazing)zzz (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, just saw your diff. Does that mean I'm wrong then? Oh, well. It did seem odd.zzz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Signedzzz – I think you will come off worse if an IBAN is imposed. An IBAN isn't imposed on one editor, it is imposed on both editors i.e. you will be subject to the same restrictions as Flyer. In this case not only are you forbidden to respond to each other in discussions, you are forbidden to make changes to each other's edits. Since Flyer22 has been here much longer than you it will be very difficult for you to make changes to articles she has heavily edited without compromising any of her edits i.e. you are much more likely to violate the sanctions than she is on articles that come under common interests. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to close I move to close this proposal with a result of no consensus for the proposed interaction ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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


204.17.60.130[edit]

This user's edits have all been undone.[102] β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk β€’ contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014

Disruptive behavior by EllenCT[edit]

This is part of a long string of confrontations with EllenCT mainly in honeybee or pesticide related articles Neonicotinoid and Colony Collapse Disorder. I'll preface this by saying that I hoped as a relatively new editor to never pursue administrator action and be able to resolve disputes and editor behavior issues without, but that does not seem feasible in this case not for lack of trying for some time to work with EllenCT on these behavior issues.

So far, EllenCT has:

[ β€’ ] Accused me of COI without evidence against WP:COI, and continually hounded me with veiled claims of astroturfing. [103], [104], [105], and attributing content I pasted to my sandbox from a problem article as my own content for further COI accusations [106].

[ β€’ ] Refuses to discuss on the article talk page, specifically stating she is assuming bad faith on my part per the continued WP:HOUNDING and failing to drop the stick on COI [107] all because I posted a peer-reviewed literature review as an example of a secondary source. [108] [109] She has since been on a tirade about how the source is biased and unreliable even though we were not proposing content on it. Main discussion here [[110]]

[ β€’ ] Stated her reason for not attempting to use the article talk page before going to RSN for a dispute was her assumption of bad faith [111] , which is counter to WP:AGF throughout the whole talk section. [112]

[ β€’ ] Consistently brings up editor behavior concerns (whether unfounded or not) on the article talk page, and has stated, "I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your pervious [sic] comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit."[113] This is a blatant violation of WP:TPG as she refuses to use user talk pages to discuss editor behavior and has stated she will continue to use the article talk pages.

[ β€’ ]Demonstrated lack of basic knowledge related to the topic from time to time. This was kindly pointed out by another user, but it didn't seem clear that the message got across that she needed to slow down and acknowledge mistakes were made. [114] [115] Being factually incorrect is fine, but the way that has been dealt with (or lack of) does seem like tendentious behavior is potentially affecting her ability to make competent edits. Quite a bit of time was spent trying to alleviate mistakes that she wouldn't back down from.

The main concerning policies or guidelines are WP:COI, WP:AGF, and WP:TPG. These concerns are all rooted our in policy WP:CIVIL. This behavior runs afoul of that policy, especially from WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL that includes personal attacks and "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". She has continued to claim I am biased and furthering an agenda when all I did was list the source in question as an example of one secondary source, and nothing more.

She continues to post about perceived editor behavior issues on article talk page after being warned multiple times not to:

[ β€’ ] Towards the end of my comment [116]

[ β€’ ] Still kind warning. [117]

[ β€’ ] Warning with a good in-depth explanation, especially on the ground-shifting and avoiding questions by asking new ones without responding to previous ones. [ β€’ ] Explained to her here. [118] [119]

[ β€’ ] Second to last warning. [120]

[ β€’ ] Final warning. [121]

I originally had more of a narrative, but some helpful users guided me on more suitable concise formatting expected for ANI. The more detailed version is below just for posterity (or if someone really wants the details):

In conclusion, there are multiple editor behavior issues here. EllenCT has essentially stated she is assuming bad faith on my part, even though I have told her she was vastly mistaken in why I listed the source and she continues to misrepresent what I said. Adding on the use of the article talk page to attack users, we have a number of disruptive editor behaviors that continue through WP:IDHT after repeated warnings. This establishes a series of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior that alone in a single edit may be tolerable, but accumulated over the course of this summer indicates the inability of this editor to follow Wikipedia's policies on civility, not to mention her stated intention to continue doing so. There is no sign this continued behavior will stop.

I could see this general behavior potentially warranting a site ban given the history, but I'd personally prefer to assume EllenCT has a belly button, and that something just set her off on this tirade in this topic specifically. With that, I'd instead at least suggest a topic ban on bee and pesticide related articles. I've always been open to other solutions to resolve this issue, but there don't appear to be any additional options at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. The ArbCom requests that statements be limited to 500 words. Is there any reason that the community should be expected to parse much longer walls of text? Is it possible that EllenCT didn't hear you because your wall of text was too long? Waiting for an intelligible complaint. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I already pointed out that this was long because there's a lot of content that's not easily condensed, and I don't want to make flimsy accusations per WP:BOOMERANG. Do you have any suggestions on what would help? I stated I have not posted at ANI before, so I'd ask for just a little patience at first if there's a convention I missed. The main paragraphs to read would be the first four. I could did collapse most of the remaining as general background so people could read the finer details if they want if that helps focus it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This should be closed before a lot of time and attention is wasted on it. OP's links demonstrate that @EllenCT: has been hounded mercilessly by VictorD7 and was piled on by various other editors. Srich32977 had the good sense to respond to feedback from EllenCT and others by voluntarily withdrawing from interaction with her. Citing previous failed complaints as "evidence" here is more likely to result in a boomerang than in any sanction against EllenCT. I also feel that there has been an element of gender bias in these recurring accusations and tendentious arguments against her. I urge OP to withdraw this thread. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I withdrew from interaction with EllenCT for two reasons. One, it looked like an RFC/U was in the offing. Two, because SPECIFICO agreed to my suggestion to undertake providing guidance. (See: User talk:Srich32977/Archive 14#EllenCT for details.) I do not know how much guidance was provided. I do not think "merciless hounding" was ever an issue. Gender bias and tendentiousness was never a factor in anyone's engagement with her. (I am commenting because a notice about this ANI and because my name was specifically mentioned.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, my post does not say that Srich was a merciless hounder. There's no question in my mind that Victor, however did engage in such a way. Srich came on too strong, see here: [151] but to his credit, he responded to guidance and withdrew from the problematic interactions. That's quite a different response than to declare that her experience of the interaction is invalid, or much worse, as here, to blame the woman for feeling threatened. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The history is not there as main evidence. Being brought to the boards is a big deal regardless of outcome. Being involved in similar previous disputes indicates that she should know all the more what is considered improper behavior to keep her nose clean. That is all the history is there to demonstrate since we're primarily focusing on her behavior at Neonicotinoid. The behavior there stands on it's own. I'm well aware there has been drama involving EllenCT in the past and some of it not deserved on her part with some of the hounding you mentioned. However, the validity of her previous actions and disputes are not in question here, nor was I involved in them. This was documentation that there were previous disputes and nothing more. I do agree that there is the potential for previously involved editors to pile on, so that's why I'll ask early on that people remember the focus of this is her behavior at the bee related articles. I have no idea why gender is interjected into this conversation though. That has never been a topic of contention (nor can I see why), so focusing on gender would only be a distraction.
The behavior issues are apparent on their own. I'll let them stand as I laid them out. I've tried to be civil, help with understanding content, and pointed out how she could remedy her behavior so we could have effective discussion at the pages for quite awhile now. I've kept my nose clean in trying to civilly deal with the behavior issues, even in presenting the above evidence that the behavior is intended and will not stop. If I had given up right away when the behavior was an issue, then there could have been boomerang issues, but I'll let my history show I've been trying to work with EllenCT despite the grievances above. That's why a boomerang would be an odd thing to mention if we dig into what's actually been happening at the article. If I have done something that would truly warrant WP:BOOMERANG then I am all ears, but that would be something to discuss elsewhere such as my talk page as no such conversation has taken place as I have not been warned about any issues yet. The topic here is EllenCT's behavior, so we should remember to stay on topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my behavior, and ask for administrators' help and patience as I try Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014). I understand that the mere existence of controversial topics can be disruptive in their own right, through no error on the part of any given editor. Therefore I ask administrators to consider the behavior of all parties to any controversial topic. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a note specifying that discussion prior to this (and after referencing TLDR) was before I made edits to simplify the case. The original "narrative" is within the Additional background diffs that culminated to this issue box. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have found her edits and discussion on Talk so axe-grindy and so impenetrably illogical and generally disruptive that I walked away from the page. Kingofaces has been a freaking saint, dealing with her. He provided boatloads of difs above. (yes it was tl/dr but cut him some slack, this his first ANI). The topic would be much better off without her involvement. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Who would have prevented Kingofaces from using a Bayer-sponsored literature review which misrepresents its own title and was scrubbed of any non-Bayer-supporting sources, if not for me? Do you agree with Kingofaces that the American Bird Conservancy review by two distinguished authors of 200 high quality primary sources should be deleted from the article? EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The above response is exactly what I meant. The description of the Bayer-sponsored review is just bizarre. And Kingofaces never even tried to use that as a source. Even here, she is doing this. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to respond to specific issues concerning my bizarre description if they are specified. The title of the review purported and strongly implied that the document was substantially different than the plain language of its methodology indicated in the abstract. Kingofaces produced a citation to that document when I asked him what they thought an example of a WP:MEDRS-quality source was. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. However, subsequent events which you apparently refuse to provide your opinion on, as to whether the American Bird Conservancy's authors are impeccably accurate (please excuse the pun) have suggested to me that my initial impressions were not an assumption of bad faith. Now I wonder why you have not disclosed our previous strong disagreement about the affects of monoculture and the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer before offering an opinion about me here. EllenCT (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
All I'll say is that this is a continuation of the behavior issues I listed above. I listed the source in question simply as what an example of a secondary source is as I described in my initial post here. The source was the article at the top of my to-do list on my collection of literature reviews to summarize, and later (long before most of this dispute occurred) I listed the rest of the studies that I was looking at for weighting content for scientific consensus [152]. Since then, EllenCT has falsely accused me of trying to push this single review into content and blown the simple fact that I stated it was a source to look at into a diatribe about COI and paid-advocacy (and issues with that going back to Jytdog’s initial support post here). She had been warned she was running with those assumptions way too far as I attempted to correct that misconception, but apparently that was never heard as the behavior still continues. [153] [154] I also agree the comment above, "Who would have prevented Kingofaces from using a Bayer-sponsored literature review . . ." represents an tendentious attitude of trying to right great wrongs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a first step (as an involved admin). I think the topic ban is a good idea, but I've had conflicts with Ellen on a number of a different articles, and find she is incapable of believing she could be wrong in result, regardless of whether her arguments have any weight, and she seems incapable of believing that anyone who disagrees with her has good faith. Even when I agree with her, her style doesn't seem collegial. Speaking as someone who also has been accused of not having a collegial style at times, and recognizing it is a problem, she goes far beyond that. <statement redacted before save; I'll assume good faith to the extent that an argument to which I wrote a counter shouldn't be brought up in the first place.> β€” Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Arthur is involved because I have recently asked that his sanctions be extended to include a topic ban in the areas of economics, where he often tries to push anarcho-libertarian views as if they were mainstream instead of fringe. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose EllenCT has strong views. I often disagree with them but she presents them in a reasoned and well-documented manner. She is not intimidated by disagreement or disparagement and she has frequently had to advocate here views to an aggressive group of dissenters. She's attracted ideological adversaries and has had to persevere despite considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based and would not have been directed at a similarly outspoken male editor. This thread should be withdrawn or closed promptly without action. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I have been one of the participants in the neonic discussiosn and in my view there is no evidence of gender-based opposition from the regular participants there. (EllenCT did have a weird hounder who popped in for a short time, but you convinced that editor to back off). Your post is in my view a red herring that draws away attention from EllenCTs' behavior, but since you opened this I am going to have to ask you to provide difs or strike. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This is a sensitive subject right now. I did not accuse any individual of making gender-based attacks, however I understand your request for supporting information. The larger issue of gender on WP is currently being discussed on this page. I suggest you post a brief neutral message in a new section there and ask for some fresh eyes to join this thread. I could be mistaken, but I think that gender bias in editing and interactions is a complex and subtle matter and that it is part of the problem here. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you said, "I did not accuse any individual of making gender-based attacks. . ." That indicates it's not a topic for this discussion here then (as Jytdog mentioned, it's a red herring here). It does seem gender discrimination at WP is an important topic for you, but this is not a forum to discuss such things just because an editor in question is female. The topic of this ANI is EllenCT's behavior at neonicotinoid related topics, what to do about it when she's been warned multiple times that it blatantly violates Wikipedia's civility policies and has shown she plans to ignore those warnings. That behavior is inappropriate regardless of gender, nor should gender play a role in that decision. It's been made clear gender was never an issue in this incident or with me, and that should also be very clear in the diffs provided as well. Even if say I or another user had been acting as a raging misogynist in this incident, that still would not excuse the EllentCT’s behavior I outlined above. I’d ask you to either provide diffs gender was directly an issue related to this particular incident, or refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS that this was actually an issue in this particular incident. We don’t need to be interjecting unrelated things here and adding unneeded drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Gender bias does not always show up as black and white. Just as racial bias does not always show up as black and white, even when it's about black and white. Meanwhile, I suggest you consider my suggestion of getting some additional uninvolved opinion, which would help us all to understand whether my concern is relevant to this case. I note that, despite your lengthy documentation, there has not been much support here for your concerns so more opinions on the matter will be helpful even if I am incorrect in my discomfort about the issue. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned, either provide diffs or refrain from casting aspersions. It’s really sounding like you’re on a fishing expedition in this case for this bias rather than seeing evidence of it from what you described so far. We’re discussing the specific behavior by EllenCT I brought up in my initial post. Please keep the focus on those actions rather than wandering into other topics and distracting from the behavior issues in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO We are all aware of gender issues on Wikipedia, which are a problem. But again, you wrote "She's attracted ideological adversaries and has had to persevere despite considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based". "Considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based" is something that can be demonstrated in difs. Please provide difs from the neonic topic area (which is what we are discussing), or strike. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
One kind of behavior which some women find unnerving is to have men repeat themselves, restating their questions or concerns without responding to the responses they have already elicited. It appears that you've just done that here. Both men and women might believe that such behavior is unproductive, but some women tend to experience it as badgering or hounding, while the typical male response might be to conclude that the interaction is not worth pursuing any further. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Please recall - I walked away from the page due to EllenCT's repetitive accusations and WP:IDHT behavior. Who is more "male" and who is more "female" here? None of these broad brush things make any sense or are of any use without specifics. In any case, you are unwilling or unable to actually support your claim and unwilling to strike as well. It is what it is, I guess. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words and patience. Although I have certainly been treated by a small subset of editors in ways which may have been influenced by my gender, on reflection I think most of my detractors are motivated by envy in that I apparently have a much easier time finding, understanding, and summarizing complex secondary source material. However, the most disruptive sources of conflict I have experienced all have five things in common: (1) a history of paid advocacy in the topic area, whether on or off-wiki or both; (2) evidence of behavior consistent with paid editing; (3) attempts to censor or obscure valid summarizations of reliable secondary sources; (4) attempts to impugn the integrity of such sources with no compelling reasons they are likely to be flawed, and (5) a willingness to request sanctions when faced with persistent attempts to point out that the most reliable sources are being misrepresented in a way which supports an economic benefit to moneyed interests. Suggestions are welcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is a spot-on example of EllenCT's difficult behavior. (Envy??) Nothing there is supportable and the broad stroke accusations of COI/paid advocacy/paid editing are ugly and inappropriate. This is exactly how EllenCT disrupts discussions of neonic-relatedarticle content and sources. Jytdog (talk) (edited to make specific per remarks below Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC))
Which are the specific discussions, other than those of neonicotinoids, you believe I have disrupted in such a manner? Why have you refused to say whether you agree with Kingofaces that the American Bird Conservancy review should be deleted? EllenCT (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
that is a good call on the overgenerality of my statement; i meant "neonic articles" and have edited my comment above to limit to that. thanks. and per usual, i am not going respond to your strange, quasi-prosecutorial question. so, so convuluted, off-topic, accusatory. blech! Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. If I asked why you thought the underlying dispute was off-topic, would you answer that? If a question about whether you agree with my detractor's opinion seems accusatory to you, what does that suggest to you about the validity of their complaint? EllenCT (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
EllenCT This is not about a single discussion but rather is about your pattern of behavior. I don't even know how to unpack the second question. Your tangled questions (which I have attempted to answer many times, which answers you have just ignored) and your persistent claims about paid advocacy/paid editing are just disruptive. I and others have asked you to stop many many times. I've come to the conclusion that you are just POV-pushing with anything you can grab and I have given up hope that you will listen, and change your behavior. We can stop this here if you would just voluntarily withdraw from that topic. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I object to the implication that I have ignored any of your answers to my questions. Which specific answers do you think I ignored? More than the number of times you refused to answer my questions? I understand that you find the point of view that money can influence science to be uncomfortable because you edit in areas where monied interests have been accused of misconduct. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
done with this. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (uninvolved, except for providing a brief opinion at WP:RSN) Kingofaces43's post was indeed WP:TLDR, though the "D" in my case stands for "did". It paints a pretty bad picture. Having strong views is not a problem, (I for example edit in WP:ARBPIA where I have strong views). But just reading the main discussion linked by Kingofaces43 shows that EllenCT has little knowledge or appreciation for the issues involved. Continual dismissal of information as astroturf or COI is not helpful. There is plenty of astroturf and bad science around the pharma or pesticide etc. industry, but this kind of indiscriminate behaviour will not do. Reviews of literature are complex, and there are all kinds of subtle problems with them, such as the supression of unflattering studies. But these are subtle matters to be judged by competent specialists, and do not lend themselves to massive swiping. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and I am afraid EllenCT is attempting just that. Kingsindian (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Question: On what basis do you claim that I have little knowledge or appreciation of the issues involved? I've read at least half a dozen literature reviews on the topic just in the past six months as a volunteer, and you, at the WP:RSN#Is the American Bird Conservancy an advocacy group? thread you mention, are the first to have joined Kingofaces in opposing NorthBySouthBaranof, Darkfrog24, Stephan Schulz, A Quest For Knowledge, and myself. In doing so, you agreed that the source that Kingofaces is trying to delete is reliable, but claimed that you were insufficiently informed to determine whether it is of sufficient weight. Does that seem like a reasonable position from which to make informed judgements about whether other editors have reasonable amounts of subject matter experience? I would note that Kingofaces took the question of the same source to WP:RSN previously with no notification on the article talk page [155], where he was told that it was acceptable, and decided to delete it anyway. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place for a content dispute, so my focus is on behavior here. There's much more going on in the discussion than what EllenCT is portraying. The RSN in question that I posted was about how to handle advocacy groups as sources for scientific content in general. My example was the bird source in question, but I specifically stated I had no edits in mind at the time for that article. That's why I never posted it on the talk page because the RSN was not about that article. When I removed the source at a later date, I was doing so under under WP:RS and WP:SCIRS after reflecting on the general topic for some time, and EllenCT brought the actual source and content to RSN without any talk page discussion. The first RSN was a question of mine alone not pertaining to any article, while EllenCT's was specifically about content in an article. She's been trying to conflate my actions as being the same as hers, but she is well aware that I have explained this a false assumption to her already. [156] Either way, this has been rehashed in my initial posting already, so this is further evidence of WP:IDHT behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you think your attempt to go against RSN consensus twice was reasonable? Since you posted to RSN the first time without disclosure, why is my raising the issue on RSN wrong? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
To EllenCT: I do not base my reply on the RSN content dispute. There is nothing wrong with content disputes, I have them all the time. I base my reply on reading the talk page and diffs. I see a persistent attacking of sources as COI or astroturf with bizarre logic (conflating editor COI with source COI, even after this has been pointed out many times), accusations of paid advocacy, general lack of good faith, personal attacks and refusal to compromise, in line with a a conviction that one has the WP:TRUTH. Kingsindian (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have accused me of attempting to right great wrongs and of believing to know the truth. Can an ability to locate, identify, understand, and accurately summarize secondary reliable sources lead to behavior which appears consistent with those attributes? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban this attack on a source noted above because it is a Bayer sponsored study sponsored by Bayer, without any reference to relevant facts, shows that the issue here is one of POV EllenCT's. Let me note that complaints of TLDR above are absurd not to mention inconsiderate. The complaining user provided short, bulleted, fully-reffed statements. Evereything was immediately understandable, and the evidence at the end of the item. Had he not been so concise and thorough, the complaint would have been dismissed as giving insufficient evidence. When complaints here are dismissed because they are too well evidenced, we might as well all go reason with ISIS and tribesmen killing Ebola volunteers. μηδΡίς (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Question: Why do you not consider the fact that the title of the review implies it is about "Risks of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Honeybees" while its methodology indicates that it is only a review of "current and proposed guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees"[157] to be relevant? As for the TLDR concerns, you are seeing a very much shorter version than was originally posted. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Rather than ask me such a question, why not just post a concise challenge? I have a BA in plant ecology, so I don't think I'll find fact based arguments too difficult. I detest the fact that so much of WP is TLDR by idiots not schooled in the topic at hand, and that is a major issue in my withdrawal for the main part from main space. The issue here has been a formal, not substantive one, and I can see myself opposing any sanctions against you, EllenCT, if I can read them in five brief sentences or less. μηδΡίς (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I challenge you to answer the question. EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the intended support re: TLDR, but just to clarify, most (if not all) of those comments were about my original post here. [158] I was making sure I was being thorough in my first posting, but it was suggested I edit it down into bullets shortly after. The bulk of my original narrative is currently in the collapsed section of my posting, so hopefully that clears up any confusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. I did not review the Colony Collapse Disorder article, but I did review the Neonicotinoid article's talk page. I don't see any behavior on EllenCT's part that supports a ban of any kind. Lightbreather (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd ask that you specifically refer to the diffs I provided in my initial posting. The unfounded COI accusations and stated refusal to discuss behavior issues anywhere but the article talk page are pretty blatant in them. After repeated warnings for that, if not a ban, what would you then suggest to stop her behavior issues? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Furthermore, I would also support a broader one on topics related to American politics, due to continued and long-term disruption and similar issues regarding sources and such at articles including, but not limited to, Economic inequality, Progressive tax, Single-payer health care, Income inequality in the United States, United States, and so on. If one goes through the talk page archives, we see the same sort of problems regarding misunderstanding POV edits, of poor sourcing, and of bad faith claims toward the opponents and opposing sources. This has gone on for some time now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thargor Orlando, as as stated in my initial posting, I'm more interested in seeing a specific topic ban here for the articles I brought up right now (although I could be open to more if convinced). I know there's a lot of drama following EllenCT from other articles, but I also don't want that drama turning this ANI into an incoherent hot mess that's jumping between many articles either. Could you maybe comment on why you'd support a topic ban in the context of the diffs I provided, and then separately provide very direct diffs from areas you've been involved in where this behavior is a problem (mainly showing she has been warned against this behavior)? I'd rather see the topic ban for bees and pesticides come into place first, and take the short leash approach to ratchet up sanctions if that ban still doesn't get it across to her in other areas that her behavior has violated our civility policies and guidelines and distracts from the goals of Wikipedia. That seems to me to be better way to approach this, rather than do everything at once.
If you (or anyone else) feel strongly about wider bans than I've proposed and taking care of that now rather than wait, it might be better to make a separate subsection here about EllenCT's wider behavior issues in other articles and propose action based on that material on top of whatever decision comes here. That way, the specific behavior I've brought up here can be addressed as a specific incident, and wider issues can be addressed later (either in time or sequentially on this board). Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43:, I'm merely expressing my overall opinion. I support your claim, and if it can be broadened, I support that as well. The number of diffs would be overwhelming to include in an already-significant pile of evidence, and the talk archives of those pages are easy to navigate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem at all. I was just a little concerned that bringing in previous problems in other areas had the potential for derailing the specific conversation here depending on how they would be handled here. I wasn't quite sure of what your approach was going to be previously, but I don't have any concerns now that you've explained where you were going with it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: the bulk of my most recent interactions with Thargor has been whether to include [159] in Single-payer health care, so given my recent [160] I suggest that administrators decide for themselves why we are graced with his presence today. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And you'll note that, after nearly a year of asking you to use the item as a source, you did and I had no objection. This doesn't change the months of disruption throughout the articles listed, nor does even this proposal from Kingofaces45 assume that 100% of your contributions are without value. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - full disclosure, EllenCT and I have disagreed on articles relating to economics, some cited by Thargo Orlando, as well as two arbitrations I've witnessed here and here. There have been numerous instances of bad behavior I've witness or been on the receiving end of her activities. I had hoped she would take a little of the pushback to heart.Mattnad (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mattnad, similar to my comment above to Thargo Orlando, but could you provide specific diffs of where this behavior has been problematic and she has been warned against it in some form? In this section, I'd like to demonstrate she has been warned many times already for this behavior in general, but if other topics are going to be discussed more than that, probably better to start a new section. I didn't go looking in the economic topics on her behavior much, so additional history like that would demonstrate just giving her another warning wouldn't do much good. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mattnad, was it you who said you had looked for years for secondary sources on the payback from education subsidies that it took me less than a day to find? Glad you could join us here too. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic-ban as a remedy for the conduct issues that are in evidence. Neutral - Based on review of the talk pages in question, I see a heated content dispute, and that EllenCT does engage in personal attacks, but I don't see evidence of tendentious editing that can't be dealt with by dispute resolution. I would support a warning to Ellen that the next personal attack, including claims of whitewashing and claims of paid editing, will result in a block. A topic-ban doesn't seem to be the right remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I proposed a topic ban because a warning did not seem like it would be effective (though it was my first preference for awhile early on). I demonstrated that she was warned multiple times in this topic, and other users have also mentioned this has been a problem. Five warnings from users cited in this topic followed by a statement specifically intending she plans to continue the behavior is what indicated to me the behavior was going beyond what even an admin warning would remedy. As for content disputes, the only area where dispute resolution would come into play are reliability of sources or the WP:COMPETENCE matters brought up previously on content. That is largely tangential in this discussion as it's the behavior that's in question here in the specific diffs I provided. The behavior I've described is described as tendentious on WP:TE primarily here [161], here [162], here, [163] and WP:GREATWRONGS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Could you please say why you think whitewashing and paid editing are descriptions of people instead of their behavior? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
They focus on contributors rather than content. Whitewashing is the act of the contributor of removing unfavorable content. The content issue would be one of undue weight or POV. Since there are strict rules about paid editing, the allegation of undisclosed paid editing is a personal attack. Discussing editorial behavior is still discussing the people doing the behavior rather than the resulting article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If I say an article, paragraph, or sentence is whitewashed or paid for by interests conflicting with those of our readers' and someone asks by whom, where do I draw the line between accuracy and avoiding offense? EllenCT (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Exasperating. EllenCT what secret knowledge do you have that lets you "accurately" know there is COI at play? You don't say' it was whitewashed or paid for by interests! That is personal attack. You are here at ANI with a topic ban over your head and you still can't hear this. This is why I walked away from neonis and why kingofaces is a saint for hanging in there and remaining civil - the level of WP:IDHT is staggering. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon please try to imagine being on the other side of this. Would you please consider changing your !vote particularly in light of EllenCTs' response to you (not to mention the pile of difs that have been presented?) thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the Bayer-funded source upon which our original dispute (and my original dispute with Kingofaces) was predicated is not whitewashed or paid for? I am fine discussing it as content instead of contributors, but I would like some guidance as to whether that extends to off-wiki authors who self-identify as being paid for by Bayer. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I will explain this for the zillionth time. your response to Robert C is about content in a WP article - and content can only be added to WP by editors. If you say that WP content is whitewashed or paid-for, you are saying something about an editor - you are saying something about violations of NPOV or COI. When this comes up you always shift your ground to talk about the Bayer funding of a specific source, which is an issue of WP:INDY, and at that, a source that kingofaces has never actually used as a source in the article and only brought up as an example on Talk. This is so frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
User:EllenCT - By insisting on your right to yell about paid editing and whitewashing, when, as far as I can see, you don't have actual evidence other than the assumption of bad faith, you just lost one of the !votes. I don't think that a topic-ban on insecticides is the answer. Maybe a topic-ban on political topics is necessary (even if that is a de facto site ban). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain how it would be possible to raise a WP:COIN concern without engaging in personal attacks as you have described them? EllenCT (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think EllenCT's repeated levying of unsubstantiated COI claims is sanctionable. She should knock it the hell off but seems to be an IDIDNTHEARTHAT zen master. Final warning should be given that a block will follow if she does that again. As far as the actual editing on the Neonicotinoid piece goes, I think that Ellen is right about inclusion the bird study and Kingofaces appears to be editing tendentiously. He should knock that the hell off. I don't think a topic ban is the answer here, but if I were an administrator (which I am not) I wouldn't hesitate for five seconds to give either one of these two a timely block if they don't knock it off. Close this thread with a stern final warning to each is my advice. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Carrite this is not a content dispute. this is about a consistent pattern of behavior on the part of EllenCT. Wrt your comments about kingoface's judgement on the piece put out by the American Bird Conservancy...in my view this source is legitimately questionable - this is not a peer reviewed scientific study - it is an WP:SPS put out by an advocacy organization. I wouldn't use an SPS put out by anybody with any stake in the game - not the pesticide manufacturers and not an environmental group. But please don't treat this as a content dispute. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion on the Bird Conservancy is apparently not strong enough to share with RSN? EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not edited the neonic article since this ANI thread was opened. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. I have no familiarity with the topic or most of the editors, including EllenCT. I'm opposing because I can't see that a case has been made for a topic ban. Several of the presented diffs seem unproblematic. Ellen seems to have a concern that there are COI issues, with respect to sources and contributors (particularly Kingofaces43). I looked at Talk:Neonicotinoid, and couldn't see anything ban-worthy there, but I did see that, when Ellen expressed concern that an involved party, Bayer, had funded one of the sources (a source presented as a literature review), Kingofaces43 replied: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies ..." An effort should definitely be made to find independent sources for anything contentious. Perhaps some of the potential COI and sourcing issues could be raised at COIN and thrashed out there. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin Kingofaces never tried to use the Bayer funded source. He just brought it up as an example on Talk and EllenCT grabbed onto that like a pitbull and has been all over KingoFaces ever since. I have been trying since June (at least, but please see the exchange at that link) to explain to EllenCT that it is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA to continually make accusations of COI/paid advocacy against other editors on Talk pages and edit notes, and that INDY is different from COI/paid advocacy, but EllenCT persists in making accusations and conflating these concerns. She has displayed a lack of competence (or at least failure to read carefully) multiple times in the course of POV pushing (see here for example - she kept adding content and pushing on Talk, content based on open letters posted on the web by members of the British Beekeeping Association that protested Bayer payments to the BBA that had to do with endorsements for pyrethroids - not any neonics - but kept claiming they were about neonics until we finally got through to her). We cannot make progress with this continued disruptive behavior. It is maddening. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, regardless of the Bayer source, KingoFaces said that the funding of source material doesn't matter, but it clearly does.
WP:COI explains that there's such a thing as "apparent COI": "An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does." An apparent COI can be as damaging as an actual COI, because it creates anxiety, and therefore ought to be resolved. (See Michael Davis, "Introduction," in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001, p. 18.) Kingofaces, perhaps you could explain why you don't have a COI. Your user page says you're an entomologist who works with pesticides at a university, which obviously raises the question of industry funding, now or in future. It's the sort of thing that could be discussed at COIN, rather than here. It seems wrong to ask Ellen not to express concern about it before it has been resolved. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying SlimVirgin . EllenCT has raised the issue, and Kingofaces addressed it immediately, here (see last sentences) and his professional work is also described on his user page. EllenCT has continued to pursue it inappropriately -- even on this board and in my eyes this is hounding/harassment and a violation of AGF. But again it is her overall pattern of editing on these articles related to neonics namely Neonicotinoid and Colony collapse disorder in particular. I recommended to her way back in June that if she had concerns about Kingofaces having a COI that she should bring it to COIN or NPOV and instead she has persisted in making attacks in edit notes and Talk. It is part of her disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
btw my analysis of how the bayer-funded source could be used is here. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, the diff of Kingofaces addressing the COI issue doesn't show him addressing it (that I can see). I would suggest opening a COIN, starting from the AGF position that Kingofaces43 does not have an actual COI on those pages, but that someone would be justified in thinking that he does, and that it needs to be cleared up. It could be that Kingofaces and Ellen are interpreting COI differently, one narrowly, one broadly. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
User:SlimVirginI see two issues here that are related but separate. The first, as SlimVirgin says, is whether Kingofaces has a conflict of interest. That can be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. As mentioned, an apparent conflict of interest can be problematical also. The second is EllenCT's I didn't hear that apparent insistence on her own right to state that edits are whitewashed and that editors are whitewashing, and to accuse editors of paid editing (something beyond COI). My own assessment, and I may be wrong, is that Ellen not only knows what the truth is, but also knows that anyone else who doesn't know that must be editing in bad faith. It is hard to identify real conflicts of interest when there is an editor who sees all edits with which she disagrees as paid edits or as whitewashes (rather than honest disagreements of opinion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ SlimVirgin Above the dif, EllenCT wrote "Attempting to present this source as a literature review raises serious questions relative to bias, neutrality, and the insertion of paid advocacy in to Wikipedia articles" Kingofaces directly addressed that by writing "'I'd suggest backing down on the pitchfork mentality and trying to manufacture biases on my part. We address content here on Wikipedia, not beat around the bush by trying to assume a bias to an editor when the evidence doesn't suggest it. If you want to discuss my professional involvement in EAB or entomology in general (I worked with control methods where insecticide use wasn't an option), I suggest bringing it to my talk page rather than derailing the conversation here" EllenCT did NOT bring it to his Talk page and she did NOT bring it to COIN (null search here) and instead persisted in wielding the pitchfork. This is disruptive behavior. Someone could always bring it to COIN. I have not; I find his face value disclosures I linked to above to be sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That response didn't address the COI concern; it deflected it (perhaps rightly so, given the venue). Again, I suggest that someone (preferably Ellen or Kingofaces himself) open a COIN. If the COIN consensus is that Kingofaces doesn't have a COI in relation to those articles, then sanctions can be requested if Ellen continues to imply that he does. But first the discussion ought to take place, because the concern is based on the conjunction of Kingofaces' own description of his work and on his editing, rather than an editor simply assuming bad faith.
Again, what might be behind this is that Ellen and Kingofaces interpret the COI guideline, or the concept of COI, differently, so it would be worthwhile to have a discussion that applies common definitions and parameters. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I hear you and agree that somebody who cares could do that. The point of this thread is that EllenCT has a wider pattern of disruptive behavior. Harrassment over COI despite being advised to go the boards several times is part of that pattern. I know I am persisting but EllenCT's editing is incredibly frustrating and her behavior has not changed despite several editors' efforts asking her to change it. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Just yesterday I asked above about which specific discussions, other than those of neonicotinoids, you believe I have disrupted, and you answered: "that is a good call on the overgenerality of my statement; i meant 'neonic articles' and have edited my comment above to limit to that. thanks.... Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)" I believe I have edited two neonic-related articles. Now you say there is a "wider pattern". So which is it? And you say that I have been advised to "go to the boards several times." This ANI thread was started because I went to RSN, after Kingofaces had already been there without disclosing it on the article talk page. And I have been advising you and Kingofaces to go to WP:COIN if you have issues with my edits. I don't recall you or anyone else in the neonic topic area asking me to seek dispute resolution on either specifically appropriate noticeboard before demanding that I be banned here. So to which "several times" do you refer? EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"wider = your behavior is problematic in ways beyond your persistent accusations of COI. I am only supporting a site ban for neonics; others can make judgements about your behavior in other articles.
  • Robert McClenon left you a long message on May 20 about being careful about COI/paid editing accusations on a different topic where your behavior was under discussion at Arbcom here. (The Workshop discussion of your behavior at arbcom is here)
  • I advised you to back off the COI accusations here on June 11 (especially in light of the same issues coming up about you at Arbcom);
  • you and I specifically discussed COIN/NPOVN here on June 14 (entire thread is in EllenCT's archive here), where i said "Continually bringing the accusation of COI in the course of discussions of content, is unproductive and ugly and bothers everybody that has to deal with it - that behavior will come back to bite you as well";
  • Kingofaces told you COIN is for concerns about COI here on July 8. That is all I can find right now, but that is plenty.
  • I also just found this ANI from last April where you hounded another editor with same convoluted accusations of COI/paid advocacy for bringing a source that you found tainted.
For pete's sake, when are you going to stop disrupting WP by conflating concerns about sources (per WP:INDY) with concerns about editors (per WP:COI)? I laid out the difference between them for you several times (here on june 30 and here on July 3 and here on july 7) yet you persist and persist and it is to the point where I can only interpret your continued blurring of the difference as willful wikilawyering to avoid NPA. You do this to win arguments to push your POV and it is just disruptive - the community should not tolerate it any longer.Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Responding to Slimvirgin's comments above, whether I have a COI is largely outside the scope of this ANI. What is within the scope is EllenCT's behavior we've bee dealing with. That being said I already stated I do not work with neonicotinoids as Jytdog covered well above. That is more than enough without additional evidence demonstrating a COI per WP:COI. I also do not receive funding from Bayer. I'm happy to discuss perceptions about academia and funding sources on my talk page (as I asked EllenCT to do), but actual evidence is needed for COIN. It's a stretch to insinuate COI because I work with insecticides, and Jytdog mentioned the additional posts I've made further outlining how I work with insecticides should have especially dispelled additional COI concerns. Either way, that's a talk page conversation if someone wants further clarification on what exactly I do before seeking out COI, and shouldn't be a distraction from the topic at hand. Even if I was a blatantly evil scientist paid by company X, that still wouldn't excuse EllenCT's behavior and way of handling things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ just want to step back here. I am self-aware that i am pursuing this pretty fiercely and that this may make me look like a crazy person in some people's eyes. ANIs about persistent disruptive behavior can sometimes be blatant and easy, and sometimes are more subtle and difficult. EllenCT is a civil POV-pusher and this is one of the difficult problematic editing behaviors that we deal with in WP - you can skim all you like and you will just miss the issues. Those who are making judgements, please take some time and carefully read. Trying to really engage with EllenCT has been maddening. It is almost impossible to reach a reasonable middle ground consensus - instead she plays to win and will shift the ground of her argument, throw convoluted questions at you that convolute our PAG and the issues at play, and will never make a concession - she just bails and then comes back later with more of the same. One just cannot make progress. I am sorry for forum-flooding but am trying to highlight the actual issues. EllenCT has actually been helping make the case as most of her posts here reflect her editing pattern very well. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

These personal attacks are absurd. The suggestion that I don't compromise is obviously false (e.g. [164]) and the personal attacks about "convoluted questions" reflect nothing more than the fact that Jytdog often refuses to answer questions which make him uncomfortable, which can be seen in this section above and at [165]. Being accused of bailing out and coming back later by someone who refuses to answer simple questions is ironic. EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks for again helping make my point. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that Ellen is civil, for what it's worth. Examples: [166] [167]. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If administrators truly believe that behavior breaches the standard of civility here, after the months of refusal to compromise on the National Academy of Medicine book which Thargor subjected me to, then please ping me. I am no longer inclined to think that contributing to this thread will improve the encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed[edit]

Not sure if this has been proposed before, as the conflict between the two users is so depressing to me that I haven't been following it closely, but I feel a standard symmetrical IBAN between Carolmooredc and Sitush is needed. I haven't commented before in the conflict between them, as far as I remember. (Unless you count this post where I called Sitush a cunt to make him feel better.) What's pushed me over the edge into the fray is that Sitush is currently writing a BLP about Carol in his userspace. Carol has put it on MfD, Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore and Sitush's responses in that discussion strongly suggest strongly that he intends it for mainspace. A really terrible idea. Please note that I'm not suggesting Sitush is more at fault than Carol in their dispute in general. That's not my opinion, nor am I interested in depressing myself further by going back through the record and analysing it in depth. There's just too much of it. Both users need to take a handful of chill pills and back off. Our standard IBAN, described here would do well, in my opinion. Admittedly, it doesn't say that you're not allowed to write articles about people you're IBAN'd from interacting with, but common sense will obviously include that detail. Policy writers can't think of everything, nor should they even think of everything. Not to go TLDR here, please see my post here on Sitush's page if you're interested in an argument about how writing a BLP about a wiki-adversary is like writing a BLP about oneself (at least, it's like it in being equally unsuitable).

Note: I can't stop anybody from commenting here nor do I want to, but could the people who have already posted copiously in the conflict and would like to tell the world how much it's all Carol's fault/all Sitush's fault, please avoid swamping the thread with the usual back-and-forth? Leaving most of the space for those uninvolved in the conflict would be productive. Of course we'd all very much like to hear from Carol and Sitush whether or not they're prepared to agree to such a ban. That would make the "consensus" thing moot, which would save a lot of wear and tear on all our nerves. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

(ec) Do you think the IBAN should have a fixed time frame or be indefinite? I am thinking that a few months may be enough. Indefinite bans have a tendency to fester over time. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • neutral to weak support There is certainly distraction for editors and admins caused by the interactions between the two. I'm not sure it raises to disruption. I note the issue above with Specifico. Normally when there is one editor involved in many disputes with many different editors, its a sign that the element in common may be the issue - however I acknowledge that there may be a larger political dispute in play and its not so much carol herself who is the nexus of the dispute, but the political position she represents (which is a perfectly acceptable position to be in, to be clear). I don't think the evidence is strong enough to show pure WP:HARASS on the part of sitush so in this instance would oppose a one-way. However, if a pattern continues where everyone who ends up on the opposite side of an argument with Carol gets ibanned, its going to make it difficult for Carols efforts to be seen as legitimate when the opposition has been silenced. (Which is not to say that they may not deserve being silenced). Its a difficult quandary. For the record, I think Sitush's article is well sourced, while some may suspect his motives, saying the resulting article is an attack is not shown by the evidence. However, it would be wiser for him to let someone else write it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, for the best interest of both these editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see any actual issue with Sitush's recent article creation in his personal userspace. As far as I can tell, he's not flaunted it in her face or even remotely tried to point it out to her (I may be wrong, and if I am then this would obviously change to support). Her wikistalking and hounding of him is what's started this most recent tirade, and it is a waste of everyone's time an energy. Let's say I have an obvious hatred towards... User:GoodDay (just using you since you were the last to post) and I ended up writing a well written, neutral, policy compliant article on you because you did something wonderful and became article worthy and notable - what's the harm? There's no slew of hatred in sight there - nor is there anything within the article to suggest that Sitush dislikes her. Going to the extent of an IBAN is over the top here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Concerns In this case I am more likely to support it because I have run into Sitush almost exclusively on administrative forums where he comes to criticize me, my talk page when he "forgets" he's banned, and lately Jimbo Wales talk page and gender gap task force. However, the fact he gave me less than 24 hours after the close of the last ANI regarding wikihounding of me before starting an aggressive form of harassment with this "draft bio" does make me worry he'll start following me to article spaces and causing problems there, while still observing the letter of the law (i.e., no replies, no reverts). As I wrote at the MfD:
As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8)[168][169], urged people to "do some research" on me[170], and even wrote:I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[171]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[172] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[173].
So I leave it up to others' better judgement. (Though I may have to reply to any questionable statements.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Later Note: Sitush has made threat(s) which resulted in an indefinite block and are discussed at ANI: Request review of block of Sitush. The actual text of the threats have been redacted and only partial and unofficial summaries shared by users. Sitush made the threat(s) within hours of angrily denouncing me for thinking that we were discussing a voluntary two-way interaction ban at this ANI(starting at β€œIndents are weird”). He earlier had written on his talk page β€œShe wants me to avoid her because that would suit her: she "wins" because I'm censored regarding her interests and she has no interest in mine.”[174] Given his attitude that editing is about "winners and losers", I really must ask the closing admin to review the redacted comments to see if they are one more indication that a two-way interaction ban should be imposed. (There are three comments starting at 20:11, September 20, 2014β€Ž User talk: Sitush) Sitush now has been unblocked in only 24 hours without a shred of explanation from the closing administrator, User:Nyttend. I can't rely on others' opinions that Sitush will not continue editing. And thus I must worry he will continuing his harassment of me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Carol - remember how I told you to stay far, far away from the drama there? And how it seemed like you were soaking this stuff up and feeding on it? This post is a prime prime example of you seemingly grave dancing and playing the victim. Grow up. Aren't there better things for you to focus on at the moment considering that there's no sight of Sitush and you can work unimpeded at the moment? You focusing on this and seemingly providing these "updates" rather than working on editorial content and such is, well - concerning. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, and from all appearances, Sitush made the threatening remark towards Demiurge. There is no reason to believe it was directed at Carol.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Carol, please review what happened down below. Someone else unblocked him, so I closed the section because further discussion was moot. I shouldn't need to explain myself, because all I did was procedural, just like the bot that closes lots of WP:FFD discussions for images that got deleted by human admins. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I (briefly!) looked over the interaction on Sitush's talk page and don't see any reason for imposing an IBAN that will prevent Sitush from writing and moving an article on Carol Moore to mainspace. The way I see it, the baiting is mostly one way (was the notice that started the whole thing necessary for example?) and this would set a particularly bad precedent. Allowing someone to control who can or cannot write articles on themselves is not a good idea and that's what an IBAN would largely achieve. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This IBAN discussion is not solely about the article. It's about their overall behavior. If you wish to comment on the article, check out this MfD. Perhaps Bishonen can add more about their behavior to avoid decisions based solely on the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately it is fairly clear that the main effect of the IBAN will be disallowing Sitush from writing that article. Like I say above, it is a terrible idea to set a precedent where a negative interaction initiated by the subject of the article dictates who can or cannot write the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I neither support nor oppose the notion of an i-ban here, having not explored the history of the two users in detail, but I have to say that the notion of deciding to write a BLP about a person with whom you are actively exchanging vituperative words in project space strikes me as indicative of incredibly poor judgment. I would expect any experienced editor to be aware that writing about someone with whom you are in a dispute is rife with potential BLP issues. That Sitush apparently saw nothing wrong with his handling an intra-editor dispute this way makes me wonder whether, alongside this personality dispute, there are also issues with Sitush's general judgment about BLP policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that he's writing the BLP could be indicative of poor judgement but that judgement would need to be made when reading the article. As others have stated - there's no issue with the actual article itself. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, no. My point is that the questionable judgment is in starting the article in the first place, because either he was not aware of the many ways his (presumed) bias against someone he's fighting with could leak out into the text without him even noticing, or he did not care about the many ways said bias could leak out into the text. If the article turns out to not be a massive BLP violation, that's great, but it doesn't change my feeling of "What were you thinking to start it at all?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is it simply a coincidence that there are now two active IBAN proposals involving Carol on this page? Eric Corbett 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really no, users can gang up on other users it has happened in the past here on wiki so I am not surprised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    So who do you think is ganging up on whom in this instance, and why? Eric Corbett 18:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not going to answer a loaded question and start naming names here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    So basically you're just making it up as you go along. Eric Corbett 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No because I have seen it before here on Wikipedia. Just like real life it isn't always the case where there is one aggressor and one targeted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - General animosity between the two is obvious. Sitush is quite aggressive toward Carolmooredc in his/her comments and the new "BLP" is hounding in my view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Then your view is wrong, as so often in the recent past. Eric Corbett 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; however, move the article to draft space so that anyone neutral can work on it. As User:Anne Delong said at the MfD though, However, I suspect that the number of editors who have not had negative interactions with Carol is declining by the day. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Anne Delong did not say that. Provide a diff or strike the comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a serious distortion of my comment at MfD. Is there an emoticon for "indignant"? β€”Anne Delong (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, Anne, if you didn't mean that; your comment does however read that way. I have struck my comment about you (although I stand by it in general). Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Black Kite, I read my comment again and don't see your interpretation. I try hard to avoid sarcasm and subtle putdowns in my posts. If I'm against something I say so clearly. In any case, I have expanded the comment to avoid any further misunderstanding. β€”Anne Delong (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and move to draft space per Black Kite, I fully understand why Carol is upset she has had a history with Sitush but unless it is actually Harassment there is nothing much that can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support before this snowballs into arbcom case.--MONGO 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • weak oppose I'm very concerned about what is really starting to look like a psuedo-civil campaign to silence discussion in many quarters here. An interaction ban, especially given the comments focus on one user, would play into that as far as I'm concerned. Intothatdarkness 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Fluffernutter. Let's do a little thought experiment here, for those who read this page often. Imagine I created User:Demiurge1000/Eric Corbett for the purpose of starting to collect sources about Eric for the purpose of proving his notability (I'm not sure if that's easy or difficult or impossible, I haven't looked) and subsequently writing a mainspace article about him. Given the occasional disagreements Eric and I have had, do you think this would be a bad idea, a very bad idea, or just a really really profoundly stupid idea? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support indef block I have now come to the conclusion this is simply not what the Wikipedia:Harassment says. It says Sitush should be immediately "blocked". I would love to start creating Wikipedia articles on editors I don't get along with, how fun......NOT.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full two-way interaction ban. Both editors are engaging in hostility toward each other. Sitush is being provocative. Carol's response, while less extreme, is still antagonistic. Carol's argument that she needs to edit the draft is silly. If the draft survives MFD and is moved into mainspace, it becomes the property of the community, not of Sitush, and Carol can then edit it or AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favor of a 1-way ban imposed on Sitush. This is straight-up harassment and intimidation by one party. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tarc. Comments like this and this in light of this make it clear who is behaving horribly here, with Carol only reacting from my what I have seen. The only option other than a one-way interaction ban that I would consider acceptable would be a lengthy block of Sitush for harassment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it seems Carol can support this I will support this if the "community" rejects the one-way interaction ban. It is better than nothing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tarc and The Devil's Advocate. Just three days ago Sitush called CMDC a prat at GGTF.[175] No one should have to choose between ignoring harassment or agreeing to an IBAN when you're harassed. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how IBAN is going to help anyone. There is some exhausted conversations, they can be seen elsewhere. But IBAN is not appropriate for a fresh feud. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The purpose of an interaction ban is to help the encyclopedia by removing a distraction. There is no need to work out who started it or who is right/wrongβ€”however it happened, the editors concerned are now locked in battle and it is unfair on them that it should continue. This is a no-fault iban to avoid an inevitable escalation with a possible result that an army of socks and misguided my-clan-is-better-than-your-clan editors have failed to pull off. If anyone wants exercise, try pig wrestling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is very little, if any, evidence of hounding. There is some evidence of incivility, but nothing too far beyond the norm. Most of the moderate incivility (like the 'prat' comment and 'idiot' comment) is connected with content disputes, never in isolation. The GGTF talk page is chock-full of far worse behaviour. I have very little experience with policy, but this seems a useless measure to solve the wrong problem. Kingsindian (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Having little experience with policy, maybe you don't know you should prove a point like claiming bad behavior on a wikiproject. I'm sure if he was following you around for a year with such nonsense you'd learn how to come to ANI with diffs real quick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It is true that I made the overly broad comment about the GGTF talk page without any evidence: I was trying to keep my reply brief: it was my opinion after simply reading the talk page, nothing more. But as someone said, "I'm not the only one": see the comments by Newyorkbrad here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This needs to stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Far, far too much bad blood already, and this seems to be the simplest solution, if it is implemented. Carol is not innocent, but Sitush could certainly have been a little more circumspect, and starting a Bio at such a time was a bad decisiom. We all make made decisions, though, so nip it in the bud with an IBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I struck my oppose opinion above, these two editors clearly do not get along. I see evidence of disruption, and feel that it would be beneficial to have this ban in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Only a two way ban. I don't yet have criteria for a 1-way ban, but this wouldn't meet them if I did.--v/r - TP 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A interaction ban from now to Christmas looks good enough to calm down emotions. Both parties are less than friendly towards each other. Birthday party invitations look out of the question. Keep them separated is enough in my opinion. A lock down of the draft article, including withdrawal of the MfD, for the same period, would be good. The Banner talk 14:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any imposed sanction on Sitush, in that implies sanctionable misconduct. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IBAN has destructive side apparently ignored/unseen/unappreciated by the imposers. It becomes an effective roving topic ban which isn't healthy or even consistent for best ideas in discussions impacting articles to be brought forward and heard. (For a sore throat the solution isn't surgical removal of the throat.) But the mob loves participation to be judge-jury when inconvenienced over any consideration re resultant health of articles, since that is more immediately rewarding emotionally and makes one feel "involved" and "contributing". Blech. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: the concern you bring up is a valid one, but it seems to me that you are pointing out the flaws in this plan without providing an alternative. I don't think there are very many people here who believe an IBAN to be ideal; it does not address the source of the trouble, for one. But it seems the least among evils; if you believe otherwise, shouldn't you provide an alternative? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, don't get me started! 1st, your Q is (unintentionally) a trick Q since it presupposes action must be taken, just what kind. (I question that.) 2nd, the purpose of IBAN according to policy is to stop interactions between two users that are "disrupting the work of others". (I don't see any such claim here. I see only "I'm being harassed!" and "She's being harassed!" claims. That's a different policy, not IBAN. And if harassment is the case as deemed by any admin, then they can do some work and warn or revert and/or block as they see fit, w/o the destructive and draconian IBAN.) 3rd, as much as I don't usually agree with admin Chillum, he asked a worthwhile Q above that has not received any attention or discussion. (There is night & day difference between an indefinite [permanent] IBAN versus having a fixed duration.) For those looking for simplicity in solutions, adding a fixed duration to any IBAN makes it at least less objectionable in my view. 4th, for less simple solution (and outside the scope of venue here), I think the entire administration/enforcement system through admins and current policies s/b be scrapped in favor of whatever replacement system the top 10–12 content contributors elected by the community would come up with. (Which would by definition be a more progressive and healthy structure for the future of the encyclopedia. Why? They already know what the problems are and what the solutions are, and what is best for the development & maintenance of the encyclopedia. And they are too intelligent to get into unproductive scraps. They have already invested so much of themselves into the encyclopedia, they couldn't be destructive to it in any possible way. Such a beehive of intelligence/experience would work things out. But that amazing resource goes untapped in favor of the current archaic, mob-rule, inconsistent and even abusive admin system. [Go figure.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the disruption is fairly clear; two major contributors cannot get into a brawl without collateral damage across the 'pedia. Visit GGTF, for starters, or even here, where people from either "side" have been sucked into the dispute. I agree that currently the admins have less accountability than they should; but otherwise, I feel like you are barking up the wrong tree. What you call mob-like behavior is, IMO, the (fair) price to be paid for having a relatively democratic governing structure, where anybody who makes a policy bound argument will usually be taken seriously. Far better than a cabal. If that is not really the case here, it only speaks to the magnitude of the collateral damage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I held off judgement for a long time to see if the various actors would commit to moving in non-disruptive directions, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the future voluntarily. Even if this was day one and we set aside all previous history, we would still have editors openly making plans for future metaphorical knife-fights. An IBAN shouldn't be punitive, it should be preventative. I see no other proposal but this on the table that is seeking to prevent further, easily predictable disruption to the project. Some of the earlier opposes were based on the idea that CMDCC shouldn't be sanctioned, but it looks like she now has volunteered for it. I don't think this continuing crusade is a healthy thing for Sitush, as an editor or as a person, no matter how much he may think it's justified. He seems to think he's the fire alarm to CMDCC's fire, without noticing how disruptive it would be to have a fire alarm that actively fed fires. These are flawed and easily provoked editors, and they are both wrong about things. The question is how to best avoid the obvious divisiveness in the future. No one has made a convincing argument that any voluntary disengagement is ever likely, let alone imminent; I've only seen arguments that the other side is wrong and should be stopped by all means. It is a kindness to all humans, them and us, to separate them somehow. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    It is a kindness to all humans, them and us, to separate them somehow. At the barrel of a gun (escalating blocks or site ban)?! Right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Those consequences seem likely if there's no disengagement, voluntary or not. Can anyone honestly say "Yes" to these questions: These editors have come to stable peaceful terms that will prevent future disruption? These editors won't be engaged in proving each other wrong in a new venue in the immediate future, with bad blood all around? These editors will get there all by themselves? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    A fallacy in your logic is that "getting there" (i.e. peaceful coexistence) is faux and permanently preempted by an IBAN. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Are they finished with each other?__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    I just want to say that her bio was closed as an attack, how do you go and explain that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    It is an irrelevance, really, now: done, dusted, and the "attack" rationale was a WP:IAR decision. You can't impose sanctions for punitive reasons. I've already explained what I intend to do and I think you need to take allegations of hounding etc with a pinch of salt, as per the criticism of some specific examples given a few days ago (below, somewhere, regarding WT:GGTF). I still think CMDC would pass our notability criteria, plenty of others also thought there was a chance (far more than took part in the prior AfDs), but - regardless - that article subject is not going to appear on Wikipedia any time soon because no-one who was involved in the MfD discussion can reasonable claim to be uninvolved with the subject now. Someone has asked for my sources off-wiki but they've not been given them and I've no idea who they are. I'm disengaging from CMDC voluntarily, with certain provisos as stated on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I have requested a formal closure when the time is ripe. So it would be helpful for the admin if Sitush spells out what he means by disengagement and provisos here so the admin can make an accurate determination. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(Indents are weird but I'm not touching them). See [176]. In relation to which, this may be pertinent: TParis was trying to broker something despite their underlying opinion, which does them much credit, I think. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Absent a separate section let me note: RE: Discussion of defacto voluntary interaction ban???[added question marks later in case I misunderstood] I'll note that the diffs above aren't very helpful since they represent a huge thread with many distractions. I believe a proposed solution written succinctly at my talk page helps: Sitush may agree to a two way interaction ban provided that any Arbcom action including filing, commenting on, enforcement, clarifications, ect are exempted. Such an iBan would include talking about each other, commenting to each other, writing articles about each other, reverting anothers edits, and commenting on ANI cases involving one another. Would you agree to those terms if he did?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)'' Does that sound like what we are talking about? (Later note: Yes, sounds good to me personally.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think any closer would be assisted by your not-very-subtle attempt to parse Sitush's comment into acceptance of a one-way IBAN. It is what it is and the closer can read as much as the rest of us can. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
[Later note: Paris clearly talks about "each other", not just Sitush.] If you can figure out what he wants from those two diffs, you are much smarter than me. I was just going by the last thing I heard from Tom Paris. So leave it up to the admins. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per SlimVirgin. Sitush and I go way back, so I suppose I'm not all that impartial here (and if I speak out here no one will expect me to close this, so that's good). But I think that draft was not a good idea, and without speculating on who caused what, an IBAN would have prevented that from coming into existence. I foresee further topic restrictions in the future for Sitush's counterpart here, and the only thing that holds me back (and has held me back) is that speaking out in support of an IBAN is taken as a sign that, really, one party has won. But the project will survive even if Sitush cannot defend us from this one editor, if we need defending, and it will remove at least one source of disruption. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no reason to doubt that Sitush will keep to what he has posted on his user page but CMdc just cannot stop herself even though she has been given some very good advice. [177] J3Mrs (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Opening (or proposing to open) an article on wikipedia about someone you have a conflict with on wikipedia is just weird and creepy. What good can come of it? I have no interest in the history between these two editors, I'm judging only by Sitush's actions, which to me seem highly inappropriate. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose one-way interaction ban on Carol Moore (the article)[edit]

Non admin closure. The MfD has been closed as a delete, and this discussion becomes irrelevant for now Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Should the article survive the Miscellaneous for Deletion process, I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits - and of course report them to BLPN, etc. I don't want to have to run to WMF every day because and Admin thought I should be prevented from commenting on a BLP that has been put together solely to harass me and waste my time. The present poorly sourced and down right silly stuff would not be taken seriously in any real bio. I have lots of WP:RS and material from the last article --'Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer -- that haven't been used or used properly. (Of course that article got AfD.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Opppose You're not going to have your cake and eat it too. Barak Obama doesn't get to dictate what goes in his article, nor will you. If you're notable, you're notable and an article will be created. You're welcome to discuss potential changes and such on any such talk page of any article that you have a COI in - but you don't get to dictate what goes in it. Further, I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits.. just sounds like you're wanting the ability to continue to stalk his edits and WikiHound him. Cut it out Carol! Drop the stick and stop being so damn dramatic! Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually I read that as "I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits to it", which seems entirely reasonable, and indeed is recommended as the first step in Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as there has been significant back-and-forth between the two editors. While the interaction may be lopsided, it's not one-way to begin with and thus a one-way ban does not seem appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I do find it odd that Carolmooredc should be supplying references for an article she want deleting. J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because I want it deleted, doesn't mean I'll get it deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - Is Carol requesting a one-way interaction ban, or a topic ban on Sitush on the article? As noted above, Carol has no need to edit the draft. If the draft is moved into article (main) space, it becomes the property of the community and is not subject to the IBAN. If the article survives the MFD and survives the AFD, it would be reasonable to impose a topic-ban on Sitush from the article, but the time to decide that is if the article survives the MDF. As it is, I don't know what she is asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I actually lost track myself. I knew I couldn't edit, but didn't want to be insulted when I posted refs or made comments on the article, hoping that that would be the only place I'd run into Sitush if there was an interaction ban. It looks like the article will be MfD'd both because of numbers and the obvious rationale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
To further answer Robert's question and to move my comments out of place I was advised it was inappropriate:
Comment I have no desire to have anything to do with him and never have had. This is the Interaction July 2013-September 2014. This is just from July 2014-Sept 2014. It’s mostly him following me to say nasty things. Besides the nasty "Disruption of Wikiproject" ANI comments linked above in my "Concerns" section, most recently:
I have no desire to interact with him. Judging from the Gender Gap task force, they can all take care of themselves there if he starts anything and I can just happily ignore his specific comments, though I might comment on any general principles should others get into them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a draft, Carol, You know that, you've been told that. A work in progress. Yet again, you are ignoring what others have said when, presumably, it does not suit your purpose to do otherwise. I've already explained that there are thousands of mentions of you, including ones in the past AfDs. I spent most of yesterday researching and, of course, have been doing so on and off for a long time: I tend not to rush into articles that I create and I tend to finesse them, often actively inviting others to help me out. I've invited you to help me out, actually, but you seem studiously to have ignored that, making accusations that there are inaccuracies but not actually providing any examples when asked. You also seem to have ignored the several instances in the last day or so where you have falsely accused me and/or patently misrepresented your own history here on WP. I urge people to read the thread on my talk page, the MfD and the (far from complete) draft itself. And to have faith in Wikipedia's processes of continuous article development involving the entire community. This stinks, it really does. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Interaction bans seldom do any good. Either sanction poor behavior or slug it out somewhere. That said, the "article draft" needs to be speedily deleted; Sitush, you should know better; you are making an attack page, no matter how neutral it looks, CMDC is not a person who is going to pass WP:GNG. Montanabw(talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pending the AfD outcome this discussion could be moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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


User:Eric Corbett[edit]

Non admin closing. Seems little relevance to the above with no actionable issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I think a handful of editors have just about had enough here. Most recently these edits here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Notice of relevant discussion elsewhere. There is no way that his comments I can see as being justified towards Carol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is justified either. In the past there have been poor results in attempting to respond to this users lack of civility. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Same. Last ANI turned out to nothing but Eric's been given more WP:ROPE and just keeps adding to the pile of examples of incivility and harassment. Frankly I'd like to see a topic ban and an IBAN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It is amazing how editors who consider themselves to be civil can only see incivility in others. I consider that section to be about forum shopping and thought the question asked was valid and the answers less so. J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Intothatdarkness 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that is going to come out of this subsection is another round of "who wants to lose the mop wheel warring over blocking Eric". Unless there is very very strong evidence and consensus, I suggest we nip this in the bud before it just causes another wiki-wide drama explosion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably so, but there's mounting evidence that Eric is "not here" vis-a-vis the GGTF project. However an IBAN might be more easily sustained. Just wish the arbcom would step in and get this over with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Corbett is just being Corbett and Carol is being Carol. CMDC does a good job of baiting Corbett and vice versa. They both just need to ignore each other or else go snipe at each other in someone's sandbox or user talk, and not any of the project or article pages. Before we start talking about banning anyone, I think we need to just ignore them both and not let them drag in the rest of us. Montanabw(talk) 20:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not go out of my wait to disrupt projects and articles he's involved with. It's not my fault if my opinions drive him crazy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
As it disrupts the entire project, that's kinda hard. An IBAN would solve it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Only if it's applied to both of them. Intothatdarkness 20:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Intothatdarkness: Though Eric is the more uncivil party, attacking just about anyone and everyone he dislikes (just look above at his comments throughout this ANI), a two-way ban is fine by me. If someone doesn't start a discussion on it by this evening, I'll consider starting my own. Getting sick of this nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That and his attitude towards ANI even, asking if I brought his name over to "Win a bet" [178] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Coming here/running to mummy is not always a good idea unless you want generate drama. J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There has already been drama, the fact though is that there are some editors here to edit and others who go out of their way to get to others per WP:NOTHERE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Having read the linked section, I see a personal attack directed at Eric, but no personal attacks issues by Eric. I asked on your talk page why you were opening this section. I'm guessing it isn't to ask for sanctions against those attacking Eric, but if not, why not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you?" is a personal attack. True, for Eric, it is rather mild (!). But it is still unpleasant to be the target of. --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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


Sitush interaction ban[edit]

Sitush is banned from initiating any interactions with CarolmooreDC.

  • Support as proposer. Phrased to neatly avoid the usual concern about one-way interaction bans as Sitush has to initiate the interaction. If Carol goes after him without any form of provocation then the restriction does not apply.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support indef block - Policy is clear. This is a blockable offense and nothing anyone has stated has demonstrated this was accidental. Point taken...but for the moment I am supporting both. Although it makes far more sense for this ban than both if one is the instigator and the other mostly the victim (although I hate that term "victim").--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Sitush has done absolutely nothing wrong here. He posted on his talk page that he was going to check out her website, presumably for research for the article that he is creating. His editing skills have been called into question, his ability to remain neutral has been called into question, and his integrity. So much bad faith has been flung at Sitush, all because @Carolmooredc: felt threatened and attacked by a page that has previously existed that she has edited. She's claimed to have been outed, however, that's already been rebuked. The common denominator here is Carol - not Sitush. Anyone who's reasonable can see that the actual article in question is A) in userspace and B) BLP compliant. Everyone needs to chill out and stop making this a bigger deal than it actually is. So much time and server space has been used up that I almost think Carol needs a block. But I'm sure someone else will bring that up later. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to say that anyone that doesn't see this the same way is not reasonable? Sitush linked an off wiki site pertaining to another editor purposely to his talk page and that was not OK. His reasoning for the "research" is questionable and the entire situation is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously necessary and the sooner the better. This is way out of hand now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Based on replies from others, what Sitush is doing is not ok. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a check on harassment now that the question has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the strongest form We are not going to go ban everyone Carol can't get along with. This is not Wikipedia according to Carol. If Carol is having difficulty with so many people, eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions.--v/r - TP 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We already had a discussion about Carol's actions here, the consensus was that she had done no wrongdoing, unless you want to make a topic here and show some diffs that Carol is at fault. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I didn't see the policy where I had to follow the crowd and !vote accordingly. If you please point me toward that policy, I'll correct my vote ASAP. In fact, now that I think about it, why would we even need this vote if editors are not allowed to dissent? I mean, that's essentially what your argument comes down to.--v/r - TP 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions" those were your words, and I just asked you to provide these "interactions". yes consensus is not binding and can change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [179][180][181]. Carolmooredc is more wiki-litigious than Apple and nearly every complaint has boomeranged on her until now. I don't know why memories are so short on ANI these days.--v/r - TP 03:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of those were not filed by Carol and all but one of those that were concerned the Austrian economics dispute, which was settled in an arbitration case. A recent case, concerning the Gender Gap Task Force was filed by her over a week ago and got bumped up to a still-open arbitration request. This ANI case and the one that resulted in Specifico's sanction, were filed by someone other than Carol in response to actions those editors took elsewhere that prompted concern from other editors.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just because someone is repeatedly the subject of attacks does not mean that person is doing something wrong to bring on the attacks. No one has identified anything Carol has done to provoke or instigate Sitush beyond responding during arguments he initiates with her. His actions appear to be retaliation for the sanction against SPECIFICO imposed in a discussion where he publicly expressed the intent to start following Carol around.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Your right, Sitush hasn't done anything wrong and the repeated attackful ANI complaints that CarolmooreDC has brought don't equate to wrongdoing on any of her victim's parts.--v/r - TP 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • At least part of the reason for Carol's continued presence on these boards is that she is willing to be publicly involved in Gender Gap project, and as a result has become a lightning rod for anyone with a woman-hating axe to grind. The project was started with the objective of making Wikipedia feel more friendly and welcoming for women. Consider some of Sitush's statements there:
  • [182] [Edit summary] stop being an idiot
  • [183] ...What a bloody joke. This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present. Why not comment on the substance of the thread instead of acting like a goading prat?
  • [184] [edit summary] I've lost track of how many times CMDC has had talk page etiquette explained to her
(not sure what a "prat" is, but pretty sure it's not friendly and welcoming.) β€”Neotarf (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure that's accurate. Carol joined mid 2013. These issues date back to 2011 per my links above.--v/r - TP 04:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Your links show nothing going back to 2011. They show she had ongoing issues with Specifico from other editing areas, which was discussed to death in the recent ANI, which was not initiated by her. They show she made comments on a thread about civility in the Palestine/Israel topic area in 2012. They do not show she was responsible for any incivility in P/I discussions. She may very well be scarier than Darth Vader, but your links don't show that. You may recall that Sitush's recent comments about gender on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. β€”Neotarf (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not defending Sitush. Nor am I attacking Carol. I'm here to oppose a Iban. Like before, though, I would support a 2-way ban.--v/r - TP 05:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction on Sitush for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that either the "BLP" Sitush started on Carol in his user space is immediately removed, or that it be moved to a more neutral space and Carol is allowed to comment on it. Carol has already requested Sitush to stay off her talk page, but this renewed interest on the part of Sitush appears to be related to his public opposition to the Gender Gap project, where Carol is an active participant, which he now characterizes as a practically fascist regime.[185] β€”Neotarf (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Carol has consistently made misrepresentations pretty much everywhere. Is everyone who challenges her going to be run through the same gauntlet? Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "article draft" on CMDC needs to be speedily deleted. Other than that, I disfavor interaction bans in general because they seldom solve anything, either impose temporary blocks on the miscreants (both perhaps) for specific behavior that is a problem for the victim, or else just let them slug it out somewhere. The way I see it, both parties are each clueless about certain aspects of these issues and I see no way this would end well. Montanabw(talk) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: That there is bad blood between the two users is indubitable. However, I see no evidence to justify this one-way sanction. The whole GGTF talk page is filled with incivility and shouting. I should add that I have little interaction with either user, though slightly more with Sitush. In all cases, he was civil and reasonable, even when we disagreed. Also, I have little experience in these things, so take my opinion with a truckload of salt. Kingsindian (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per TP's "Sitush hasn't done anything wrong and the repeated attackful ANI complaints that CarolmooreDC has brought don't equate to wrongdoing on any of her victim's parts", "We are not going to ban everyone Carol can't get along with . . . if Carol is having difficulty with so many people, eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions", and "[she] is more wiki-litigious than Apple..."; TKOP's "Carol has consistently made misrepresentations pretty much everywhere"; and Dusti's "Sitush has done absolutely nothing wrong here." Writegeist (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So where are the diffs, Writegeist? Do you always cast aspersions without them? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per TP. The fact that Neotarf appears to believe that any disagreement with CMDC is because she "...has become a lightning rod for anyone with a woman-hating axe to grind." is possibly (a) the biggest load of facile bollocks I've ever read on Wikipedia, and (b) effectively a personal attack on anyone who doesn't agree with her. Frankly, the GGTF would function a lot better if its page wasn't persistently spammed and canvassed with Carol's latest pet peeve of the day; perhaps it could actually get on with doing what it was designed to do, rather that what Carol wants it to do. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Where are the diffs, Black Kite, about my latest pet peeve of the day or whatever. Unless you mean complaining that editors opposed to the project keep posting insulting and mocking and harping questions and comments? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Or, in alternative language, "here's some more canvassing to link you to an ANI I started about someone who disagrees with me". Have you not noticed that practically every section started by you is similar to that? I don't see that happening with SlimVirgin, or Montanabw, or indeed anyone else on the GGTF page. Why is that, do you think? Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
In case no one has noticed, the gender gap talk page is now dominated by users who oppose the existence of such a project. The project is dead. I have taken it off my watch list and I recommend that everyone else do the same. β€”Neotarf (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction on Sitush. Carrite (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons above. OccultZone (Talk β€’ Contributions β€’ Log) 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TP, who has it exactly right. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TP Black Kite and Carrite. J3Mrs (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding I think Sitush will keep to what he has posted on his user page but CMdc just cannot stop herself even though she has been given some very good advice. [186] J3Mrs (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I find this thread fairly funny because in the SPECIFICO thread, we had people saying Carolmooredc's editing must have problems given the number of complaints and the editor that immediately came to mind was Sitush who's since I spend an unhealthy amount of time at ANI, name I'm even more familiar with (particularly considering the joking Sitush complaint noticeboard). There may me differences here, in particular my impression is a lot of the people complaining about Sitush are new editors. Anyway I think this emphasises a point people have sort of made above even if they are countering each other with it. The existance of a lot of complaints is not itself definite evidence of problems with an editor's behaviour only that it may be worth looking in to. And if evidence of problematic behaviour from one editor is shown, and none from another editor (I'm not saying this is the case here), we should follow the evidence not the number of complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comments above. Cassiantotalk 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have yet to see any compelling reasons to place any editing restrictions on Sitush. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any one way sanction Having been a talk page stalker of Sitush for a while, I saw most of this drama, and suffice to say the fault is most certainly not limited to one party. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any one way sanction per the direct answer to my question as posed to Carol. I sympathize but this is surely a two way street here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - CMDC has narrowly avoided sanctions here so many times it's just not funny any more and this thread is just a further entrenchment of CMDC's "victim status". The current hyper-sensitivity with regard to gender issues has allowed editors to be topic-banned or interaction-banned on the flimsiest of evidence; all of them with previous or ongoing disputes with CMDC. At some point we need to take a step back and consider the common denominator in all of these disputes. Stβ˜…lwart111 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support  This is the editor who wrote the article that was deleted at MfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

I've been out working and am just back home. I'm not agreeing to any IBAN because there is an obvious pile-on here and we've only just been through one. Of the two of us, I'm not the person who keeps getting involved in complicated ANI disputes etc - mine tend to be very one-sided and they are so because I comply with policy. I'm tired and I'm off to bed but as far as I am concerned, this continual hassle needs an ArbCom case. I'm quite happy to submit myself to scrutiny by them but not to submit to this lynch-mob. My reputation for research and for neutrality in article writing is way, way, better than it is for many others. I'll say more tomorrow, elucidating in particular on why this kneejerk reaction (not Bish, but the pile-on) is actually in itself evidence that too many people here have no faith in policy-compliant writing and far too much faith in the power of numbers. And, for the record, I do not "hate" CMDC as someone has said either here or at the MfD (can't be bothered checking right now). She frustrates me sometimes but generally I avoid her and, to be honest, the only person I've ever hated in my adult life has long since moved on and had nothing to do with Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment, immediate block is called for[edit]

No consensus for a block - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This seems pretty clear. Carol did not disclose any information on Wikipedia and Sitush attempted to out the editor. This requires an immediate block. This was not accidental and Carol using her real name is no excuse for publishing opposing "research". Opposing can be anything from opposing edits...to opposing the editor. Clear case.

  • Block per our policy: Wikipedia:Harassment. Warnings seem good enough for this situation. As complicated as it may seem...it is a lot simpler when you look deeper. Carol did out herself, but requested content that was previously posted and then removed not be brought up on Wikipedia. Sitush posted the off Wiki content to his talk page. She requested Sitush remove it and the editor refused and began creating an article about her.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mark is intentionally misreading WP:OUTING after I've explained to him what the policy says regarding editors editing under their real name. The policy says "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.". Carol Moore has made her identity known not only with her real name but also identifying herself as an anti-war activist. Sitush has not used this information to challenge her outside of a COI complaint and so it is compliant with WP:OUTING. I explained this quote to Mark, Mark seems to think that despite the policy explicitly stating different rules for editors who identify themselves, the policy for editors editing with a psuedonym apply.--v/r - TP 06:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, Mark's interpretation would allow any living person to avoid having an article created about them simply by registering an account.--v/r - TP 06:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Carolmooredc posted her website in this edit (admin only) and per WP:OUTING, because she never had it redacted or oversighted, it is available on-wiki. Sitush's edit here cannot be outing because she posted it herself and never had it oversighted.--v/r - TP 06:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I can't access that diff, so it looks like it *has* been oversighted. β€”Neotarf (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Far as I can tell from the user rights log, you're not an administrator so I'm not sure why you expect to see it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
              • So if non-admin can't see it, how is a non-admin supposed to know it is there, in order to request deletion? β€”Neotarf (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
                • How does she know the edit she made exists? I assume she doesn't have multiple personality disorder, that's how.--v/r - TP 19:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Intentionally? No, but clearly this has now begun to piss you off if you are going to start with such claims. Well....so much for assuming good faith. Oh well. I still hold TP in high regard. Sorry, but this has gotten out of hand and my respect for Wikipedia in handling these situations has dropped, but....that is the way the ball bounces I guess. I have done all I intend to do on this subject. This is in the hands of the community but at no time have I accused TParis of intentionally doing anything wrong. I truly believe they feel as strongly about this as I do and we are both unconnected to either editor as far as I know, but if I am to become the new target...there is no since in my continuing this.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Clearly, the community cannot handle the simplest of issues, such as admins edit warring or the creation of attack pages. For most rational people, the decision is obvious: block the admin and delete the attack page. But this is not a rational website. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Shows how much research you've done, Viriditas. I'm not an admin. This is an example of the sort of kneejerk reaction that is going on here: people are passing judgement based on hearts, not heads. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
              • You've made a mistake. My comments weren't about you, they were about an actual admin who has been edit warring, and I was comparing two different situations. I know perfectly well you aren't an admin. If there's a kneejerk reaction here, it's your own. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
                • I see, sorry. That misunderstanding would probably not have happened if you had provided diffs. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
                  • There's a something a little off about TP's analysis. He quotes WP:OUTING about the admissibility of off-wiki material in a COI complaint context, but Sitush was using the threat of exposing more off-wiki material in general conversation. Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap. One day, I'll post the link to your website on WP and then everyone will understand.[187]. Regardless of motives, there's nothing that indicates that it is specifically a COI concern where he says "Piss off", and I sincerely doubt Tarc's talk page can be considered a "suitable forum" for COI complaints. Saying "I'll post the link" makes it sound like he assumed it wasn't considered generally "on-wiki" (regardless of whether admin-only-access can technically be considered that way). It may be an academic point now, but it's arguable about whether WP:OUTING is satisfied here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Time to close – Sitush made a mistake in creating the draft article. It had some WP:POTENTIAL, and may have some merit as an Ideological Turing Test given its' NPOV. But Sitush would have been better advised to ask for collaboration in drafting it. Given the response to this ANI, it is clear that there is a concern in the community about this interaction as a disruptive influence regardless of which editor is right or wrong. With these thoughts in mind, I recommend giving a warning to Sitush to avoid interaction with CMDC and strongly warn to avoid making any comments that are not clearly in the top two tiers of Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. – S. Rich (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have mentioned collaboration. Another person who has not done the research? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree time to close - now that Mark Miller, the editor arguing most strongly for a block, has agreed, then strong warnings should be enough. To both parties. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Doug weller: It may not have been made clear that I posted my website link in 2007-2008. Maybe in 2009 someone accused me of "self promotion" so I took it down. I think I said that explicitly in the Sitush talk page conversation after my harassment notice.
The issue is, is it ok for Sitush to: follow me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year, to do so at the Gender Gap task force after he already stated he thought it should be closed down, to keep reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement until I have to get an admin to get him to stop, to call me and β€œidiot”, to 7 or 8 times harass me cause I started a subsection in a lengthy thread, to say I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum, to harass me claiming a typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion is forum shopping, to write at the task force page β€œThis task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a β€œgoading prat.” I just want to know if those are Doug Weller's standards of proper behavior. Would that be proper behavior for Carol Moore? There isn't a double standard, is there? Have I been accused of anything as bad as that? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said, warnings to both parties. If I had any doubt, which I didn't, your post to my talk page confirmed it. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: Months of harassment will mar one's judgement. What was I thinking? In any case, I'd happily take the two way interaction ban. Of course, Sitush can't control himself so if the warning is strict enough he'll quickly go into violation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're willing to do a 2-way ban, I could talk to Sitush about volunteering for it too and we can impose it based on you two agreeing to it. Would you like me to go talk to him?--v/r - TP 19:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: I'm all for it. Until this recent incident he was far less annoying than SPECIFICO and hopefully won't be following to me various article spaces since I sure would like to feel free to edit again without constant reverts and criticism. And I'll be happy to ignore him if we run into each other at Jimbo's talk page. ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've reached out to him already. I'll see if I can persuade him that this will benefit both of you by reducing drama and stress.--v/r - TP 22:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't followed you anywhere, Carolmooredc. I explained that to you on my talk page on 15 Sep but still you persist in making the allegation. Your editor interaction utility diff way, way above would be more useful if you could show that my interaction with you was exceptional. However, I doubt that it is: I contribute perhaps 2000-3000 edits a months and interact often with loads of people across a wide range of articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Just as an example, I've been on WT:GGTF with nary a mention of you here. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree. And there is no doubt you relentless cast WP:ASPERSIONS when you do. Like your very first post on the GGTF page which was some stupid nitpicking of me, which you do relentlessly. Quote:It seems that despite all your contributions on Wikipedia, you still do not have a clue how to use talk pages. What's with the "later"? It makes no sense - you should have added that as a subsequent message. This is not a reflection on your gender but rather your complete inability to follow norms, as has been demonstrated on umpteen other noticeboards. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You have 311 posts on WT:GGTF; I have 9, not all of which relate to you. If that is "following" then it certainly isn't obsessively so. And I got there via, IIRC, something on Jimbo's talk page. I'm fed up of this and am off out. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
311 posts on a task force you want abolished? Sounds like you are working hard at accomplishing your aim!!
Of your nine, besides one quote, these six go after me: [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't follow me at every diff on Interaction Analyzer; it's a judgement call on which you might or might not have. But there is no doubt that on several pages (Like User talk:Jimbo Wales) you have gone out of your way to attack me with the same nitpicking BS. I'm quite sure you followed me to GTTP after learning of my involvement, even if you deny it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Carol, I think you may have misread that, you have 311 posts, Sitush has 9 SPACKlick (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Those 6 diffs, in TL:DR are, 1 comment on you changing a post after people had responded and a response to a follow up on that from someone else. 3 edits relating to a strikeout you had placed in a comment and a reply to you directly engaging with a thread Sitush started followed by a response to a ping from another user. Not exactly chasing you around the project. SPACKlick (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One of the most asinine applications of Wikipedia's asinine "outing" policy that I have ever seen. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Carrite. Considering Carolmooredc has posted information about herself as she has at last admitted here, some might say she has been somewhat disingenuous in allowing editors to suppose she has been outed. J3Mrs (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TP. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have concerns about the implication of TP's comment above namely their suggestion that an editor has to have something they posted oversighted (supressed) after it's been deleted otherwise it's considered available on wiki and can be freely used.

    If something has already been deleted, many are going to assume it's gone and regardless of whether they originally requested deletion, they could easily take it as sufficient removal of info they later regret posting. (Actually we partially saw this confusion above with Neotarf, and this was after TP made it clear it was a deleted page.) Heck, not everyone is everyone going to remember they posted it, and even if they did, they may not remember when so finding it may be difficult and if the editor isn't an admin, will require admin help.

    I don't think WP:outing is intended to suggest oversight is needed before information shouldn't be used. While it does mention oversight a few times, TP themselves quoted the page as having said "redacted". AFAIK, redacted is generally taken to mean simply removing the information yourself sometime after posting it. You don't even need to have the diff deleted let alone oversighted. Since redacting something in a now deleted page isn't easily possible when you're not an admin, deletion should generally be sufficient.

    My reading of WP:OUTING is in the case when the information has been oversighted, mentioning it is clearly outing. In a case where "still-existing, self-disclosed information" is used, it's "not considered outing". I do not believe this was intended to apply to deleted information, even if the editor themselves wasn't the one who requested deletion, for the reasons outlined earlier. In other words, this falls in to a bit of a grey area.

    The other reason why the OUTING page mentions oversight is probably to emphasise to people concerned that they should request oversight/suppression and I'm not disagreeing with this. Particularly in cases where the info isn't widely known, there is always a risk the info may be revealed without someone appreciating the implications & there's also the risk of rogue admins. There's also the risk the page may be undeleted in the future. So to be clear, I'm not disagreeing that oversight is best, simply that we shouldn't consider it as necessary and in a case where the information is in a deleted page, it shouldn't be considered usable on wiki. (And since Carolmooredc apparently does remember they posted it and so it would have probably been better for them to request oversight if they did want the info gone. And actually, it's not clear to me that Carolmooredc does want the website gone, or rather they feel people are using it to harass them which is a related but ultimately different point.)

    However in this particular case, I don't think the website link itself can be considered outing. Not because Carolmooredc posted it since that's too complicated considering the conditions here, but because it's appears Sitush may have been posting the website relating to their plans to write an article (however ill advised that was) rather than in relation to the editor.

    Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

    • So if an admin says they deleted something, and you can't see it, how do you know if they did it right? β€”Neotarf (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Just to be more clear, requiring more and more effort from editors who wish privacy becomes a "Striesand effect" situation, as they are required to take more and more actions and make more inquiries of more people that could have the effect of calling attention to the very thing they want out of sight. Finally you get the scenario where someone is able to say "see this thing that was deleted for privacy reasons" and providing a diff to it on a page that is watched by 6,316 users. Lack of respect for privacy may be tolerated on some off-wiki blogs, but it should not be tolerated here. β€”Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The subject was not 'outed' (given evidence above), the draft article in userspace isn't an attack piece but a draft, and comments such as "Would you like me to copy all the links at the ANI to your your user page? I keep them in a text file anyway, just have to update it a bit"[194] and continual use of User:Sitush's personal name in comments and edit summaries (which I didn't know until it was highlighted by Carolmooredc) suggest this is far from a one-sided case of 'harassment'. AnonNep (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: Anyway, I'm off out shortly: got a computer to fix. You know my name - Simon Tushingham - and you or anyone else is welcome to dig around the web for me, although I suspect that you'll find more with the Sitush monicker, including the infamous claims that I'm among those paid by Prince to edit here. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) from Situs talk page. So I used it a couple times. I don't want to confuse people so won't do with any frequency. The problem with his linking to my web page and saying he was going to do analysis was it was just one more item in a long line of baiting. Yes, I shouldn't take the bait, but it's 24 hours after another ANI. I am only human, aren't I? And isn't it a shame we have to collect diffs on editors so opposed to us that we don't have time to work on articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Carol, I'm not falling for it. AnonNep (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are sooooooo many elements at play here, but to start off I will oppose a block (or even an interaction ban from above). Here's my issues, however:
  1. Did Carol ever actually self-identify on Wikipedia - the answer appears to be "yes"
  2. Is Carol Moore really "notable" enough to warrant even a draft - the answer is "unsure"
  3. What was Sitush's reasoning for creating the draft? A real article? To say "I know who you are, so behave" - I'm not sure we'll ever really know the true answer to that
  4. We seem to have a longstanding policy about BLP's: if the subject properly self-identifies to the Foundation via OTRS, and they request for no article about them, then we seem to live by that request. If Carol has made such a request, the MFD becomes moot as instant-delete-and-delete-any-future-such-drafts. This has been especially true about borderline-notable people
This really makes resolution pretty simple, if you think about it. the panda ɛ˒ˑ” 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Gee, who knew. Thanks for advice. Will do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not very good advice though. That the subject of an article doesn't want the article is generally neither here nor there, as in the case of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) for instance. Eric Corbett 17:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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


Canvassing[edit]

This looks like another instance of canvassing to me. (I'm not "of" Cambridge University, btw: left there in 1985). - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, more canvassing. An uninvolved administrator (i.e. not me) needs to tell Carol very firmly to cut this out, whether it be on the GGTF page or elsewhere (as this one is). Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Geez. I'll take off the link. The guy didn't understand WHY many people were saying Sitush's crappy bio that would never survive AfD was just harassment and I don't like to make charges without providing diffs. So I guess I should add all the diffs? Geez. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, add the diffs. Linking to an ongoing discussion in a non-neutral way (which you've got to admit that was) is simply canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm. Even the latest edit summary at that page looks dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is harassment and some Wikipedians need to wake the fuck up[edit]

I am boggled at how so many people can be so brain-dead to think Sitush is doing nothing wrong here and I can only assume these are people who either like Sitush, hate Carol, or are just so deeply immersed in the asinine Wikipedia groupthink on harassment that they fail to recognize what is going on here. To wit, Sitush strongly criticized Carol during the case regarding SPECIFICO and in one comment stated: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her." Now, I personally did not think that singular comment was problematic since I took it as being an editor stating a concern about an editor's behavior and feeling there was a need for someone to insure she does not behave disruptively. However, after the case was closed with a one-way interaction ban on SPECIFICO, Sitush merely ten hours later made a remark on his talk page about how should he "do anything related to Wikipedia" it would involve an "analysis" of Carol's personal website. This was reasonably taken by Carol as a signal of Sitush's intent to do "opposition research" on her and she left a warning about it. Sitush then responds with this remark where he pulls out several allegations based on his "research" into Carol, including making allegations of criminal activity and citing personal attacks from someone endorsing a political opponent of hers. He basically taunts her with this information he is gleaning from many non-reliable sources before launching the article over her strenuous objections due to the very reasonable concern that someone who is hot off a personal dispute with her is going to try putting out an article about her on Wikipedia.

Now, I have read the userspace article, and from my reading it seems like Sitush is selectively adding material designed to make Carol look like a lunatic. The space he gives to her statements about The Beatles is bizarre given how trivial it is and reads like something you would include to mock a person by going "Haha! She thinks Beatles fans were a part of women's lib! What a maroon!" Another issue is where he lifts material from this article to say "At that time, she was involved in an anti-war protest, opposing US military action in Iran and Iraq, and also supporting Palestinians in what she said were their defensive actions against Israeli and US troops. She was concerned that one outcome might be a Russian nuclear attack on the US." This phrasing, again, makes her sound like a lunatic since the two events seem completely unrelated or like some absurd exaggeration, until you read the actual source, which says: "Citing Seymour Hersh's "The Samson Option," Ms. Moore expressed concern that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in Russia's launching nuclear missiles at America." Of course, the Samson Option refers to a claim that part of Israel's nuclear strategy is that if the country's leaders feel Israel's very existence is threatened they will launch nukes across the world to spark off a global nuclear war and bring the world down with them, which may be extreme but sounds a lot less crazy. There are other examples, but my only impression upon reading that article in full is that Sitush was probably cackling while writing it and only making the barest effort to be neutral regarding Carol.

He does all this, while having recently expressed a desire for her personally getting dragged before ArbCom. This has all the markings of wanting to see Carol named and shamed for whatever fucking problem he has with her. I don't give a shit how much he thinks he can be neutral, his own personal evaluations of his behavior are completely delusional given that everything he has done in the past few days reeks of harassment. Basically, he followed through on this aforementioned threat and there seem to be a lot of chuckleheads here who don't give a crap about real fucking harassment on Wikipedia. Maybe there is something wrong with Carol's behavior, but it sure as fucking hell isn't excusing anything Sitush is doing here and all of you taking his side should feel like fucking gobs of shit because that is what you fucking are when you enable this kind of abusive treatment. There is a difference between assuming good faith and being an ignorant jerkoff.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound this way but I am not going to read a wall of text here, I feel that an I-ban needs to be put in place between the two, its a good solution and everyone can go on their merry way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - completely uninvolved in this whole mess (although Corbett's talkpage is on my watchlist for some reason) but I am depressed at just how partisan most contributors to this argument appear so far. After ten minutes of perusing, I can easily discern two camps, and its rare to find any comment that strays outside of those boundaries. Maybe everyone ought to take a chill pill and reconsider their goals? I don't mean this to sound patronizing, I know I could often use a step back myself. As for EC Sitush creating an article on another editor with whom he has beef (assuming I am correctly interpreting the situation thus far), that takes a huge set of balls and a willingness to relinquish any WP peace and quiet. This kind of ANI (or arbcom) response is almost inevitable. I would hve never ever in a thousand years done it myself. That said, the article, when I looked at it, appears uncommonly unbiased and would most certainly be a great starting point for a proper BLP once it moves into mainspace.  Mr.choppers | βœŽ  03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    You seem to be a little confused Mr.choppers; I didn't create the article, nor have I ever even edited it. Eric Corbett 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops - I meant to write Sitush, but I came to this kerfuffle via your talk page. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | βœŽ  01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please see my evaluation of Sitush's "unbiased" piece. There is some obvious effort to cherry-pick and misrepresent the sources to portray her in a near comical manner. He is clearly not being neutral or unbiased, but is acting out his hostility towards her with this so-called article. I have read the article and the sources and can safely say he is not being unbiased by any measure. Mind you, I have no personal stake in this GGTF drama or the Austrian Economics drama from which this feud sprung. What I am saying is based off having looked at his comments and the article in the overall context. This is harassment. Period. Full stop.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Two things; one, sometimes the things discussed at ANI and elsewhere take a fair bit of words to really describe what's going on. I want to reach through the screen and slap anyone who posts something like "TL;DR I can't read that so Imma just support banning everyone/closing the discussion/or the god-awful wiki-trope of "trouting". If your attention span is sometimes tested by a 140-character tweet, then please, go away, and let us deal with it.
  • Two, I pointed out Sitush's threat to stalk Carol's edits last week. With the article draft creation, I hope all can see now how the intimidation game has just been cranked up a notch. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly this is a rant manifested from all the feelings that have come from this thread. Some people are so set in their ways you cant expect some to change their ways with a flip of a switch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is fine. Anything that makes Carol seem like a "lunatic" is because of the sources. Though if I were in Sitush' shoes I would have created this article off-line and waited for things to calm down for a few months before publishing. Or never.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wait a tic, back up. A BLP that portrays its subject as a lunatic is OK because there are sources? What's all this NPOV nonsense I've read so much about, then? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course the sources don't say lunatic, and neither did Sitush' article. Given the content of some of the sources used, I'd say Sitush could have easily portrayed Carol as an unforutnate subject while staying true to the sources.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 13:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is insane. Sitush tells Mark Miller on Sitush talk page he's going to leave me alone and then he puts a list of alleged "search" words on the talk page of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore which includes "gun owner." In a city where it's illegal to own and unregistered gun, making such an accusation can lead to police raids and death. Or Swatting. Please someone remove this and impose a mandatory two way ban now, including banning him from that talk page which he has sort of moved off his talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold the phone here.....I went and looked on Sitush's talk page to see where they suddenly told me that they were going to leave you alone. I can't seem to find it. Mind you...I have not made that many posts on Sitush's talk page but it is possible I missed it. Diff please.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been removed, but enough already. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush put it back. My housemate, the home owner, is getting really pissed off. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I re moved it, he can go pound sand for all I care at this point. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
To his great credit, User:Fram has deleted the draft as a BLP violation. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Fram is hereby awarded with the Rene Rancourt double fist pump. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
ManymanymanymanyMANY thanks to Fram. But...we still need to get these two editors to part ways and leave each other alone. I can't figure out a way to do this so I strongly encourage an interaction ban...either self imposed by both parties, by the community...or a freaking office action by the foundation.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
An Office action could have removed the BLP, as has happened with others, if that was really the problem. AnonNep (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Happily bio's gone [Later strike of premature optimistic statement:and a voluntary two way interaction ban going into effect soon. Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Block appeal for CSDarrow[edit]

Thank you. I will abide by the conditions. CSDarrow (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am posting this here because of an unblock request by a user blocked under the Men's rights movement article probation. The terms of the probation say "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or (2) community consensus".

I have been assured that attempts to appeal to the blocking admin have been attempted and have not been fruitful. I am posting this users unblock request for them.

Links: Talk page section with block notification, Talk page section with appeal request, Block log, Article in question: Men's rights movement

My personal opinion is that the block was justified based on years of such editing. The logs on Men's rights movement article probation show this has been going on a long time. Even in the unblock request he mentions that he forced the issue and seems to think it is an acceptable way to edit a contentious area. I think any reduction in duration would need replaced with a topic ban. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What would have me do Chillum, simply leave the text there? No one is arguing it should not be changed, yet discussion has died and it still there. Cailil point blank refuses to put forward a proposal in a discussable form. CSDarrow (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I would have you not "force" issues. I would have you walk away from contentious areas where your behavior repeatedly results in blocks. I would have you reduce the certainty that you have that your actions are without failure. I did advise you that you should make an unblock request that takes responsibility for the behavior that led up to the block instead of trying to explain why you did not deserve the block.
Frankly you probably could have worked this all out with the blocking admin if you were willing to take responsibility rather than deny responsibility. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
A simple acknowledge of your comment has oddly spun out of control. This is probably going to ArbCom were I will address your point within a more general framework. CSDarrow (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, an error in your line of thinking: ArbCom is a much more focused framework, not more general. Indeed, you personally should not under any circumstances want your behavior related to MRM at ArbCom - and by not taking responsibility for your actions, you've 100% precluded this from ever going the way you want it there; in fact, it'll be worse the panda ɛ˒ˑ” 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You might be nitpicking my words a little there. I assure my arguments will be focused. CSDarrow (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Focused or not, you appear to be lucky with the details of this block; taking this to Arbcom would be wikisuicide the panda ₯’ 20:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Background
I was blocked for 1 year by HJ Mitchell, [197], for an alleged violation of the page probation of Men's Rights.
It is claimed I have edited without consensus. I believe this is untrue. The disputed text is the reference to the United Kingdom in the first sentence of the section here, [198]. The discussion is lengthy and starts here [199], though the pertinent parts start in NPOV [200] and continue back into Talk here [201].
Discussion
In point form:-
  • It clear by half way through the WP:NPOV discussion [202] that the disputed entry is at best un-encylopedic. I don't think this is disputable, even Cailil had says the source is 'shaky'.
  • Based on that alone it should be removed. However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted.
  • Cailil then starts listing possible replacement texts towards the end of WP:NPOV that then continue on into Talk [203]. We now have a torrent of ever changing suggestions, none of which he used in his eventual edit.
  • I think he is Filibustering and I know what will happen here. For me to address his comments would result in a wall of text and the discussion would be lost with the contended text still in place.
  • I try to pin him down by asking for a static suggestion, with both its justification and how the sources support it. He simply won't do this.
  • 5 days elapses. Un-encylopedic content is still in place, no consensus on replacement text had been made, and in fact I don't even think a reasonable proposal has been made. The discussion has stalled.
  • I force the issue by removing un-encylopedic content, ie either come up with a reasonable proposal for discussion or leave the text out. I get blocked for 1 year.
  • Cailil then edits the entry to his liking without any discussion, let alone consensus [204].
I don't think I have violated the terms of probation. There was a consensus the text was un-encyclopedic, otherwise Cailil would not have made a non trivial edit of it.
I respectively ask my block be lifted.
CSDarrow (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a comment for now... in general CSDarrow had 2 options here: admit they were wrong, get unblocked early. Argue vehemently they were right and 2 things could happen: 1) the community agrees and they get unblocked, 2) stay blocked with now no further chance of appeal because they have now argued they did nothing wrong, which is WP:GAB-uncompliant. Obviously, that means that this is the more dangerous route. the panda ₯’ 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand the two options. I am putting all my chips on the table and trusting the dice are fair. CSDarrow (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
And based on what I've seen, that's your problem: you brought dice and expected the rules of craps to apply. The problem is, since the rest of us were playing poker, then rules of poker will apply. You don't get to determine the ruleset, which is what your arguments below seem to be doing the panda ɛ˒ˑ” 13:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have notified HJ Mitchell and Cailil of this discussion. There are probably others who were also involved, but those are the only two who are mentioned by name above. At the same time, I wonder if HJ would consider unblocking CSDarrow for the duration of this discussion with two restrictions: (1) he can edit nowhere else at Wikipedia except in this topic; and (2) he cannot edit his own talk page (only to avoid having multiple comments about the same issues in two places). As for the merits of the unblock request, I reserve my position on that for the moment as I'm only here because of insomnia.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have no problem with unblocking him to participate in this discussion (nor with allowing him to edit his own talk page as well) within reason if that's what CSD wants. I give my consent for you (or any other admin) to unblock for that purpose as you see fit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 18 September 2014β€Ž (UTC)
  • Apologies for the TLDR - am very very busy in RL
    CSDarrow (CSD) has used a number of forums to campaign for removal of sourced material - this is now the third. He has raised spurious issues regarding sources (see below). The sources in question are all academic, reliable sourced published by SAGE and Edinburgh University Press. The core of the point in relation to CSD’s complaint about me is that I found better sources for content he wants to remove. CSD raised the content matter on WP:NPOVN[205] vis a vis 1 source's weighting this was resolved by finding 3 more sourcesat NPOVN that corroborate the material.
    He had however been talking in circles with other users on the talk page before this (I was not involved at that point) – an edit war broke out and Bbb23 protected the page for 8 days. Due to WP:MRMPS that article is under 1RR and CSD had been slow revert warring to remove the text (as can be seen here and [206]. Bbb23 protected the page and warned everyone that β€œIf after the lock expires, I see anyone continue to edit the disputed part of the article without a clear consensus in favor of the edit, they risk being blocked without notice”[207].
    When I pointed CSD to the sources on NPOVN he demanded I bring the matter to the Article’s talk page[208] which I did. When shock horror he couldn’t find the books online (despite them all being in google books) he persisted in throwing up straw man arguments and continually talking about what "new wording" I was about to add, *when no wording was needed* (see the discussion [209]. I noted CSD’s conduct to Bbb23 while he was blocked for a separate BLP issue. Bbb23 noted there that CSD was being tendentious[210].
    The matter that led to this block came to a head when immediately after the page protection ended CSD reverted again[211]. At this point Bbb23 was alerted by Sonicyouth (while he was on wikibreak) about CSD’s edit[212] – due to Bbb23's I made a post to Drmies[213]. HJMitchell saw that post, investigated it, and made his own call based on WP:MRMPS and CSD’s history.
    This[214] is my one and only edit to that article WRT to this issue. It has not been reverted by anyone despite it being added 5 days ago and despite CSD's claims of contentiousness. The only person who doesn’t like it is CSDarrow. And he has a long history[215] of misunderstanding that he doesn’t have a veto over consensus and edit-warring to enforce it. Furthermore this edit-warring and tendentiousness is part of a 2 year campaigning to remove this text (September 2012[216] and June 2013[217])--Cailil talk 10:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, the fact you should lobby for my block then brazenly commit the very thing you accuse me of is mind boggling. Rather than debate properly you go for the block, in fact twice during the debate.
  • Just before I was to ask Bbb23 to remove the text, your first attempt was to feed Dreadstar [218] and Bbb23 [219] incorrect inferences. The fact you weren't aware Whitcomb is dead is odd, considering how well known he is in Feminist circles. You seem very friendly with Dreadstar who made the block and seemingly is indebted to you. What does the "hot water comment" refer to? I got indefinitely hard blocked. My appeal was successful.
  • Once I removed the un-encyclopedic text, rather than propose a replacement text and promote discussion, you lobbied again for another block [220]. Unbelievably you then committed exactly the offense you falsely accused me of. You had two options, you chose the most disruptive.
On two occasions you chose the most disruptive of the options available to you. You have barely addressed a single point I have raised here. CSDarrow (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all CSD, the policy issue you raised at NPOVN related to the content was asked, and answered by the additional academic sources - the discussion was over, the issue resolved. You not liking the result is your own problem, and your inability to abide by WP's rules is why you're blocked - it really is that simple. Secondly nobody lobbied for you to be blocked just for an uninvolved sysop to *look at your actions*.
For the record, no Dreadstar is not "indebted" to me or anyone else (I can't remember the last time I interacted with them before your block and, as a point of order, I never contacted them) both they and HJM acted at there own discretion - they do have their own minds you know. BTW your wild conspiracy theories are not helping your case and would be better redacted. The difference between my actions and what you describe is clear and simple. And if you continue to misconstrue my or other ppl's actions you'll just dig a deeper hole for yourself. I wasn't the first person who contacted an admin vis a vis your edit-warring this time, but your fixation with me is not helping you, wikipedia is not a battleground. This is my last reply to you CSD - you've wasted enough of my and other ppl's time--Cailil talk 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to highlight the following:-
"..the policy issue you raised at NPOVN related to the content was asked, and answered by the additional academic sources - the discussion was over, the issue resolved."
CSDarrow (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Blocked. The first question to ask in any block review is whether the blocked editor will, if unblocked, continue the disruption that resulted in the block the first time 'round. Here, given the statement and the utter lack of awareness of why their conduct was problematic, the answer would have to be probably. I'm open to arguments in favor, but I just don't see any benefit to be had by unblocking at this time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The dispute is as as to whether I have been disruptive or not. We have to resolve that issue first. CSDarrow (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@CSDarrow: Wrong again. You did NOT ask for a block review. You asked for an unblock. A block review has the community review the circumstances of the block, and whether or not the blocking admin was within the parameters permitted to place the block. An unblock request follows WP:GAB, and nothing else - so if you wanted someone to determine if you had been disruptive, you did the wrong thing. Nevertheless, every single editor who has commented in this thread agrees that you were, indeed, disruptive. So, if you wanted a block review, you got one. You wanted an unblock request, you go that too - and neither look good the panda ₯’ 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some trash talk on the subject from a non-administrator. Darrow is an editor who has absorbed probably hundreds of hours of other editors, (administrators and not,) time, dealing with all his/her various issues. And for what? A look at her/his wiki record: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=CSDarrow&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia reveals that over 75% of his/her edits are on talk pages. And how many of her/his other edits to articles have been undone? It is clear to me (another of those phrase that mean in my opinion) that s/he is an editor with an agenda, that s/he edits on a relatively few number of articles and then talks every one within reading range to death. And other unfortunate editors actually try to untie his gordian arguments. Enough time has been wasted. Carptrash (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll just note that CSDarrow doesn't seem to be arguing that my block was procedurally incorrect, that I've been unreasonable in declining to unblock him thus far, that his conduct wasn't problematic, nor even that he wouldn't continue exactly the same behaviour that led to the block (and, as far as I can tell, all of his previous blocks, including one of three months' duration). Had he taken the latter approach, I might well be having a conversation with him leading towards an amicable solution. In fact, his argument seems to rest on a belief that he was 'right' and that being 'right' exempts him from all the normal workings of Wikipedia, which are especially important in contentious topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Checking your contributions page, from the time you would have noticed Cailils post, here [221], to forming and posting an opinion is 21 mins. This is an immensely complex issue involving page after page of involved argument over multiple different Wikipedia talk pages. I find it impossible to believe your block was based on rational scrutiny of the issue before you. CSDarrow (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The content issues might be "immensely complex" (though I suspect they would be less so were it not for your contributions), but the problem with your conduct is clear for anybody to see. If you find that impossible to believe, then you stand in opposition to just about everybody; thousands of people watch this page and thus far not one of them has opined in your favour. Your refusal to accept that you might not be completely correct, or that Wikipedia's norms and policies apply to you, is what led to this block, to all your other blocks, and is why we're having this conversation at ANI instead of negotiating on your talk page. Do you see a pattern emerging here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Good grief, you are the blocking Admin and you make a post like that? Might I remind you at one time most people also thought the World was flat. This is almost entirely and argument of fact, ie either I broke the terms of probation or I did not, which can be settled by examining the record of the discussion. It is impossible for you to have made a rational decision in the time period you did. I also find the joyous enthusiasm with which you joined this affair, here[222], troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
From what I have seen, I find the entire way you have conducted yourself since you registered your account on this project "troubling", and that will be my last comment here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Rather than addressing the issues pertinent to the case in hand you are indulging in irrelevances, ie red herrings. CSDarrow (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Um, wrong. On ANI, you do not get to set the limits of discussion - the discussion WILL investigate all of your behavior, your block log, and most !votes will be based on the concept of "overall net negative" or "overall net positive". This is why I think you wholly misrolled your dice because you failed to understand this most basic element the panda ɛ˒ˑ” 13:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
My post was basically referring to how HJ Michells response related to what I'd just said.
I understand the primacy of the well being of Wikipedia principle in decision making. There is actually a name for this form of governance; sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Without going into tortuous discussion, there is an implication in my arguments I am in compliance with that principle. If I was to fully unpack your interpretation of this idea then we have a very lengthy discussion on our plate. The immediate point that comes to mind is even if I proof my case and was in full compliance with the page probation, then why was I not blocked even before the whole affair even started? If this carries onto ArbCom, which seems probable, then this can be discussed in detail. I assure you I can argue my case well and the discussion should be useful for Wikipedia, whether I am correct or not. CSDarrow (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • CSDarrow is a WP:SPA on the subject of the men's rights movement (MRM); since September 2012, his editing has been restricted to the MRM article and related MRM pages. CSDarrow is WP:NOTHERE and the problem goes beyond the fact that his article space edits make up less than 6% of his contributions. His editing tends to be tendentious, disruptive and in violation of our content policies. His edits on the MRM page are good examples of his modus operandi. CSDarrow tries to get his way by repeating edits despite opposition from other editors. Examples include a slow moving edit-war over the designation of some MRM sectors as misogynist (e.g., [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228]), attempts to get MRM views on marital rape removed (e.g., [229], [230], [231], [232], [233]), and links to MRM websites or wikilinks to red-linked MRM organizations (e.g., [234], [235], [236]). He claims consensus for removal of reliably sourced content where no such consensus exists (e.g., [237], [238]) and accuses others of vandalism (e.g., [239]). Cailil is correct in saying that CSDarrow's most recent three repeat edits re the marital rape paragraph are part of a campaign that started two years ago (Sep 18, 2012, repeated on Sep 20, 2012). CSDarrow is not here to build an encyclopedia; HJ Mitchell's block was justified and appropriate. It's a shame that it took two long years and three MRM sanctions until someone said enough is enough. Keep blocked for a year or change to indef (with the latter being the better option imho). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The main feature of many of the responses here is the refusal to actually address the arguments I have raised. Which is possibly because no one as yet has a convincing counter to them. There had been a consensus that un-encyclopedic material had been in place for over 5 days. There is an implied consensus that Wikipedia does not publish material at odds with the Five Pillars. It's that simple. This is tough to respond to, which is why I largely see walls of text that are little more than Gish Gallops [240]. Aggravating factors are moot if there is nothing to aggravate. I shall not be drawn into exchanges that generate even bigger walls of text that confound the discussion, so resulting in the status quo being maintained. This level of discussion might explain some of the other blocks.
If people are willing to address my argument brought here to ANI, then I am willing to take on all comers on ANY point I have made in my appeal. Make then one by one to avoid walls of text please. CSDarrow (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
"I am willing to take on all comers" Yes, we know, and that's a concern to many editors who are not focused on showing the merits of the MRM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!! :D β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.162 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Block - Sort of. Looking at this issue has forced me to look at the block log and contributions of CSDarrow(including their 1st 500 edits). This editor isn't trying to convince editors he deserves another chance, only that he is right. Which is a constant theme in their edits. Over and over and over and over. I would say 100% of this editors edits have concerned the MRM or blocks that resulted in this editors tendentious editing concerning that subject. So when I say 'sort of', I am referring to the fact a year isn't going to do any good. He will just come back here and return to the same battleground behavior. Which should be evident by his posts after being unblocked to discuss this here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've spent the better part of an hour going through the talk page discussion and the history. I too endorse the block that was levied. I'll try to explain my rationale, with respect to the points that CSDarrow raised, as briefly as possible. CSDarrow boldly removed text that was, in their opinion, unencyclopedic, this was reverted. When the discussion and its direction is not to CSD's liking, he removes it again resulting in protection1. Following the protection expiry, CSD again removed the material to "force the issue" thus engaging in slow motion edit warring over the removal of the text. The edit warring, pointy text removal to "force the issue" and CSD's filibustering on the talk page is very much a violation of the probation in spirit if not the letter. CSD's point "However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted" is telling. There is no WP:DEADLINE and short of a BLP or copyright violation, nothing needs to be done quickly. Anything short of a realisation of these points should result in an unblock request being denied. Following his return from the block, whether it be through expiry or a GAB compliant request, CSD should be indefinitely banned from the article. Blackmane (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Blackmane I appreciate you going through the whole discussion, it is long. Though we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations. Though will I state concerning the BLP issue, there are serious candidates standing on a Men's Rights platform for the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election, and sitting members of the Governing Coalition that commonly champion Men's Rights related causes. I state this in my NPOVN submission. Suggesting they support Marital Rape is a fairly substantial assertion to make. CSDarrow (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As with any political movement there will always be internal elements that have certain views that are more or less extreme than others within it. As such a somewhat broad brush statement, as it was previously, should not, imo, be seen as a BLP violation. Cailil's subsequent edit changing the wording makes this clearer than the previous version and is most likely the reason it hasn't been challenged yet and in fact [241] a discussion was held where there was a minor consensus supporting the wording. Regardless of this, your continuous removal of material can only be interpreted as edit warring. Furthermore, when EvergreenFir reverted you, your belligerence towards that action was blatantly assuming bad faith on their part. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean the discussion between Cailil and the hours old IP accounts 81.129.126.66 and 109.148.125.244? CSDarrow (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Dave Dial/DD2K. I would need to see CSDarrow's approach change or an interest to edit something other than MRM (and by that I mean not edit MRM for a period of 6 months) to support an unblock. Political activism needs to happen off-wiki.--v/r - TP 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
RE: "Political activism needs to happen off-wiki."
Probably the best comment made in this whole discussion. It is a belief in that very fact that has me post on Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question CSDarrow What do you think was wrong with your previous approach? What articles do you want to work on? __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was the one who asked if CSDarrow's block could be lifted solely for the purpose of contributing to this discussion. I did it only to be fair to him. However, I fear that CSDarrow's idea of contributing is making it worse for him, not better. I strongly urge him to be less combative, less controlling, and less paranoid in his comments. Otherwise, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the block will be upheld.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest keep the block, or alternatively you CSDarrow should try to get it to ArbCom. The same involved editors (yes I'm involved too) can't achieve anything new for you at ANI. ANI votes are a farce anyway, as evidenced by the Tutelary section above. --Pudeo' 11:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As already noted, if CSDarrow took this behaviour to ArbCom, we not see him again on Wikipedia this century the panda ₯’ 12:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's fine, too. Atleast in that case he could probably feel he used all possible means and then has nothing to lose. Of course, up to him. --Pudeo' 12:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Sonicyouth86's rationale. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mostafa namira - unblock request via OTRS[edit]

I'll take care of it. 28bytes (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Folks, passing on, with the user's consent, an unblock request from this user, for the sole purpose of requesting a change of user name. I am merely passing on request, making no comment on the merits.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But the block wasn't for an unacceptable user name. The user has made four unblock requests which have been declined, and this equally invalid request doesn't deserve ANI space. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The username in question may be his legal name. If he is not unblocked to change it, a bureaucrat should - at least - WP:VANISH him, which is what he may be requesting but is simply not aware that is an option. DocumentError (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to go with DocumentError here. This sounds like more of a request for WP:VANISH; he doesn't want his real name associated with the account, and that is his right. Can someone who is in contact with him via OTRS clarify if that is what he wants? If he does not wish to edit Wikipedia anymore, and only wishes to anonymize his account, a bureaucrat can do that uncontroversially per WP:VANISH. --Jayron32 17:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That is what he wants - he does not intend to edit.--ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have added ticket:2014091710034961 for OTRS-enabled admins to see the full story.--ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the talk page, which should reduce his concerns. For the possible change in name, should we post this on WP:BN? PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
yup DocumentError (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that the request is for a vanishing, maybe next time it would be better to email the 'cratlist, rather than repeating the name in public, to avoid spreading it further? Writ Keeper βš‡β™” 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked for and received his permission to post here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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


  • Sorry to comment after this has been closed, but...it seems either the wording "A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return" (emphasis mine) should be removed from Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, or vanishings like this need not to be granted. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Might be a one-of situation. Kid shows up, registers using real name, spams the crap out of us by re-re-re-creation his own non-notable biography because he thinks it's Facebook/LinkedIN, gets blocked, shows up in searches that potential schools/employers might find that they were "indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia", which really might not look good. the panda ₯’ 15:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Takfiri[edit]

I've recently added a major omission to the article Takfiri, regarding how this term has come to be used as a sectarian slur. I've used three different reliable sources and an external link, which have been deleted wholesale repeatedly from the article with no discussion. One of the accounts deleting the added material appears to be a burner account. Can someone please take a look at this for me? I don't think I'll be able to resolve this without outside assistance. Thanks. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) You have removed half of the lede about a theological term, and added twice as many words about very RECENT usage of that term, over 9 4 days of slow edit warring. Statements like "The article is about the term and all its uses" are incorrect: articles are about a single subject only and we disambiguate to other subjects. Now a case could be made to include information about recent usage further down in the article, but per UNDUE this would likely merit only a paragraph or so, and perhaps a sentence (if that) in the lede. But the place to gain CONSENSUS is at Talk:Takfiri, not through edit summaries and not here at ANI. Woodroar (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
9 days of edit wars... what are you talking about? I didn't even edit the article before (around)2 days ago4 days ago. Not sure where you got the other week from. The fact is this term has become highly contentious and this can't be wiped from the article. There is no other place to indicate this short of creating a Wikipedia:Stub article specifically for takfiri as a sectarian term. Nulla Taciti (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I was looking at the last edit prior to yours, which was 9 days ago. Your first edit was 4 days ago. The term certainly can be wiped from the article, if that's what CONSENSUS indicates. I have no opinion on whether it should be another article or not, though I am concerned that a new article would only become a COATRACK or ATTACK page. Woodroar (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out the well documented derogatory use of a term using high quality sources does not indicate an "attack" or specific agenda of any kind. Obscuring these facts, however, would seem to indicate the latter. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well 2 days have gone by and the information I added to the article has remained intact (even though my request for discussion on the talk page has gone unanswered...). An admin might want to do a quick check on the article before closing this matter. Thanks. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism attacked[edit]

Revdels and protection applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Feminism has been attacked with 4chan-style vandalism from various anonymous IP addresses today.[242][243][244][245][246][247][etc] Would someone mind semi-protecting all pages related to WikiProject Feminism except Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Members and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism for one week? Maybe that will give the GamerGate misogyny wave time to run its course. Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And an admin should please revdel these diffs. These links are ghastly. Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I second Kaldari's and Epicgenius' requests. Lightbreather (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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


Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Revdel may need to also be applied to this version of the page. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


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


(non-admin) Already done by Xezbeth. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Uh, the removal of the material should also be rev-delled.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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


Harassment by Hasmens[edit]

(Non-administrator observation) Per WP:IAR. Since both complaints are about the same issue, I've turned it into a Grand Unified Complaint. Kleuske (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasmens has been engaging in long-term, large-scale copyvios on Northern Cyprus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). After I cleaned up the article with the help of Diannaa, Hasmens left a harassing message on my talk. I don't think he understood anything from the copyvio warnings he received from Dianna and myself. His message includes crude warnings such as And keep your hands off articles related to Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots in general which has been edited with utmost care and consideration. No one understands Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots more than the Turkish Cypriots themselves. and the rest of the message included nasty attacks on Greeks in general and myself and my ethnic background in particular, including but not limited to:

You are talking about copyright when you yourselves disregard every copyright rule in the book by claiming and looting the culture and history of other countries. You are the most ignorant uneducated person I have ever come across. How dare you vandalize and delete information that is hundred percent true. If you cannot accept the truth and facts don't read it. What gives you the right to delete sourced information. You have vandalized the entire page and left the page looking like a mess, this is clearly a personal attack and hate that has been passed on by generation to generation.

This is the second such harassing message, the first one was almost as bad. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. Ξ»ΟŒΞ³ΞΏΟ‚πράξις 08:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Large scale Vandalism by Dr.K[edit]

Unfortunately politics has interfered in my recent edits on Northern Cyprus. As a Turkish Cypriot I have volunteered my time to improve and expand the article on Northern Cyprus with my sources been taken from websites based in Northern Cyprus. Some of the information I added was changed around and improved in a way so in which it can be understood. If you could compare the information with the original it is quite different with some sections using different wording and such. I was ready to negotiate with Dr.K and was even prepared to alter the section into my own words. But unfortunately it wasn't enough. The dispute initially started with GiorgosY who is now banned from editing. Many attempts to vandalize the page where made by this specific user over the past few weeks. Attempts to delete, blank, and vandalize the page was also made by various other users disagreeing with factual well sourced information which has been taken from archives and books written by professional historians. I would like to state that Dr.K deletion of the sections on Northern Cyprus where politically motivated. As a regular Wikipedia reader and editor I will be very disappointed if information which doesn't suit the specific nationalistic interests of users is deleted. It is evident that Dr.K is motivated by hate towards Turkish people in general, and would like to see my edits to be restored to its original form Thank you! Their should no room for politically motivated edits.

Regards ( Hasmens (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) )

Dr K brought this problem to my attention yesterday morning, so I reviewed the 50 edits you made to the article Northern Cyprus. All the material you added was copyright violations, copied from various copyright online sources. Dr K was correct to remove the material, and it cannot be restored, because its inclusion on this wiki is in violation of copyright law. Insulting other users the way you did constitutes a personal attack. If that kind of behaviour continues, you could be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thank you Dianna for your valuable assistance in this incident. I am still concerned that, despite these warnings, Hasmens still seems to defend his copyvios by saying: and would like to see my edits to be restored to its original form and by making ethnicity-based attacks such as: You are talking about copyright when you yourselves disregard every copyright rule in the book by claiming and looting the culture and history of other countries.. Such militancy in defending copyright violations on a personal as well as an ethnicity level is disturbing and imo it exhibits WP:BATTLE at its most extreme. I am very concerned about that. I am also concerned about his WP:OWN mentality exhibited by: And keep your hands off articles related to Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots in general which has been edited with utmost care and consideration. No one understands Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots more than the Turkish Cypriots themselves. I am also concerned by the bolded sentence which implies that direct copyvios constitute a sign of utmost care and consideration in editing Wikipedia. His open defiance in defending his massive, repeated and long-term violations of the copyright policy in the face of multiple prior warnings, betrays no understanding of one of the core policies of Wikipedia and is really concerning. The last thing the project needs is militant serial plagiarists. Δρ.Κ. Ξ»ΟŒΞ³ΞΏΟ‚πράξις 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday's warning is his final warning. Any further copyright violations will result in an immediate block (as immediate as differences in time zones permits). I will watch. Also, as User:EdJohnston rightly notes on the user talk page, the article is subject to ARBMAC restrictions. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Diannaa for your reply and for letting me know about EdJohnston's warning. Your approach and that of Ed's has been professional. Thank you both. Take care. Δρ.Κ. Ξ»ΟŒΞ³ΞΏΟ‚πράξις 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Diannaa: The harassment continues. At EdJohnston's talkpage he is accusing me of racially motivated edits providing quotes from GiorgosY and falsely saying that they are mine. Please see this section on Ed's talkpage as well as my reply with a diff proving the quote is not mine but GiorgosY's. He is also accusing you of misconduct. As I said before, he is not showing signs of either stopping the harassment or understanding the copyvio issues involved. Δρ.Κ. Ξ»ΟŒΞ³ΞΏΟ‚πράξις 03:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

degree in template Infobox officeholder[edit]

User:Xenophrenic is deleting degrees from infoboxes Example 1 Example 2 Example 3. I tried to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder but nobody, except for User:Xenophrenic, joined in. In the discussion User:Xenophrenic actually said that he liked the idea of adding a degree field to the template and then he went ahead and deleted degrees from another biography. Is this a WP:POINT type of behavior? The spirit of editing should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to enforce a bureaucracy. I'm not sure what should be done here. How hot is the sun? (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a content/template issue and not a matter for this noticeboard - FWIW degrees awarded should not be in the alma mater field of an infobox - just the university itself. Please engage Xenophrenic on their talk page if you want to discuss changes to the template. Bear in mind that everyone here is a volunteer and may not answer messages instantly. Thanks!  Philg88 β™¦talk 15:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

β€Ž213.198.221.171[edit]

Blocked by Drmies for 72 hours.  Philg88 β™¦talk 11:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Can someone else please have a look at the recent problems at Special:Contributions/213.198.221.171? Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the problems are with the bully attitude of Joy, who removes my comments in which I complain about his abusive behaviour. He removed POV tag from the Yugoslav wars, and started threatening to ban me, since he is an admin. However, he is from Croatia, and I am an anonimous editor from Serbia, and he clearly has a conflict of interest there. He abuses his admin status to push his POV, to the point where he removes POV tag, removes my comments from discussion pages, and shows general pattern of abusive behavior towards editors from country with wich his country is involved in longstanding disputes in interpretation of history. He uses intimidating warnings and attempts to whitewash his bullying attitude when I complained about him to the community. Are admins here supposed to intimidate and bully anonimous editors over their POV, "own" articles, remove talk page comments not favorable to them? Is this comment going to be removed by Joy as well? If this is the place for complaint about his abuse, then please help stop it. Or perhaps this is what this site is about? 213.198.221.171 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


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


Promotional account attempting to insert javascript into articles[edit]

Blocked by Discospinster. Drmies (talk)

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

Adonis333infinity (talk Β· contribs Β· deleted contribs Β· logs Β· edit filter log Β· block user Β· block log) has mainly been trying to promote a bicycle website (even creating a now-deleted spam article). Given that, I see little reason to assume that the javascript he's been trying to insert into articles is going to be helpful to the site. Oh, wait, he's definitely continuing to spam.

I know he hasn't been responding to anyone, and maybe he's blind, doesn't know English, and is on a cellphone with a platform that doesn't get notifications or something, but he's at his last warning and has had plenty of warnings to stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Marketplace banner spamming? Yeah, a block is required here. β€”/Mendaliv/2Β’/Ξ”'s/ 21:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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


User:β€Ž66.102.129.154 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM[edit]

β€Ž66.102.129.154 (talk Β· contribs Β· deleted contribs Β· logs Β· edit filter log Β· block user Β· block log) continually adds unreliable reviews to various Decapitated album articles, adds non-ratings to Template:Album ratings, and now is also ignoring WP:MOSALBUM. The articles in question are:

I reported this user to WP:AN3 here, but no action was taken at that time. I attempted to discuss this with the user on their talk page here, but they did not in any way engage in discussion, and simply removed my explanations. The most "discussion" from this user has been edit summaries like "template is not a guideline" [248] and claiming I am vandalising these articles [249] (showing an obvious lack of understanding of WP:VAND).

Unreliable reviewer:

  • The user added a review from About.com, by a reviewer named Dave Schalek here. About.com is already a questionable source, as a lot of it is not overlooked by an editing staff. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#About.com, after a discussion about the site here, only reviewers that have been shown to pass WP:RS should be used. This Dave Schalek has no evidence supporting his reliability as a music reviewer. His About.com biography does not in any way support him being a professional music journalist. Rather, he is a high-school physics teacher, who happens to write reviews on the side as a "hobby". However, this user keeps re-adding this unreliable review, despite providing no evidence that this reviewer in any way passes WP:RS.

Adding non-ratings to Template:Album ratings:

  • The user keeps adding non-ratings to this template on all 5 articles, non-ratings being WP:OR summaries such as "favorable" or "mixed". See Winds of Creation, Nihility, The Negation, Organic Hallucinosis, Carnival Is Forever. I have nothing against these reviews specifically, and encourage their use within the prose of the articles (for example, here I left the information this user added to the prose from these reviews, and did the same on the other four articles), but they should not be included in the template itself. A recent discussion on that template's talk page found many editors agreed that adding non-ratings to the template was not a good idea, and that these better belonged in the prose of the article, or at the very least included as external links at the bottom of the article. In the case of these articles, all are included in the prose, where they belong. Despite this, the user still insists on re-adding them to the template.

Other MOS issues:

  • As shown in the links in the first section of this case, this user is now causing other MOS issues. I removed star ratings from reviews that do not use stars (per Template:Album ratings: "The information in the score field should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use the star rating template"). I moved many references to Template:Cite web, as bare links should be avoided (see the essay WP:BAREURLS). I removed columns from the Personnel sections per WP:MOSALBUM ("If the number of participants is longer than 20, the list should be divided with a column template such as Div col or col-begin." – none of these articles have personnel lists longer than 20 participants). There are also general issues such as poor grammar, poor choices of wording, missing quote marks, unnecessary formatting for quotes, etc. All of these changes were wholesale reverted.

This user is unwilling to engage in discussion, despite my attempts to do so. The user is not interested in learning how Wikipedia works, does not follow policies, guidelines, template documentation, and existing WP:CONSENSUS formed by discussions by many editors (in other words, WP:IDHT). The user is not interested in working collaboratively, and despite some good edits (such as the addition of Critical Reception prose sections to these articles), is generally not helping Wikipedia. I'm suggesting a block, with a duration long enough to give this user time to read the above-mentioned policies etc, along with a suggestion from the blocking admin that they do so. If this user takes the time to learn, and starts engaging in discussion and a willingness to learn how to follow Wikipedia policies, guidelines, documentation and consensuses, we could probably work through these issues, but right now I do not think this user has any interest in doing so. Instead of improving other articles, I'm wasting time constantly fixing this user's poor edits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

comment
  • MrMoustacheMM use "rating" template and other non guideline disscusion pages to undo my edits, i can't make a change in article withaout revert from MrMoustacheMM, he interprets guidelines on his own, first time he removed reviewed pages claiming that they don't apply to WP:RS , then he says that the same guidline does not allow to use non rating reviews, there is no "real" contributions by this user to Wikipedia, he only undo all edits in articles about bands he like 66.102.129.154 (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal that User:Protonk's removal of my (Flyer22's) WP:Rollback rights be overturned[edit]

Restored rollback rights per my reading that there is a consensus to do so. Protonk raises a reasonable concern about the way rollback can be seen as biting newcomers, though there's a degree to which this is inherent in the way the tool is routinely used and not something that should be specifically sheeted home to Flyer22. Adjwilley presents a compelling argument regarding the recent use of rollback by this particular editor, and their history of appropriate use of this and similar tools.. Perpetuating this thread is unlikely to generate much more in relation to this specific "incident" and might be better moved to talkpages or a WP discussion of the way rollback operates. If there are further specific "incidents" the issue can always be raised a second time. Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Protonk came to my user talk page with concerns about how I revert WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits, especially with regard to WP:Newbies. He stated that he thought that the majority of my reverts were good, but disagreed with a few ways that I revert, including when it comes to reverting blanking per WP:VANDTYPES and sometimes reverting WP:Newbie edits as WP:Good faith edits without explaining to the WP:Newbie why I reverted him or her. I noted that the way that I patrol is no different than the way that the vast majority of WP:Patrollers, including WP:Administrator Materialscientist, patrol, and that there is no requirement that I leave an explanation each time. I also noted that, per User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies, editors who agree with my style of WP:Patrolling have mentioned how time-consuming it would be if I left a message for every user that I reverted with a WP:Good faith summary. Regarding any edit that I may label WP:Vandalism, I was clear that I don't label edits WP:Vandalism lightly; except for the occasional mistakes, I only label them WP:Vandalism when they clearly appear to be WP:Vandalism, such as extensive blanking without an edit summary. That is common practice among WP:Patrollers. I told Protonk that there are times, such as in this case, that I will recognize a mistake I've made on such matters and revert myself, while noting the mistake in the edit history and/or removing the warning from the user's talk page if I left one there (and my edit summary will note that it was not vandalism). I also noted to Protonk that I am not perfect when it comes to my use of these tools, but indicated that I generally do my best when using them.

In the aforementioned archived discussion, Tomwsulcer and Rivertorch named me one of the best WP:Patrollers Wikipedia has, and indicated that I make wise decisions in various moments regarding WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. I have also received various barnstars, and compliments from various WP:Administrators, including from Mark Arsten, for my WP:Patrolling. But because some of my WP:Patrolling decisions conflict with how Protonk would handle WP:Patrolling, and because the aforementioned discussion I had with him on my talk page turned unpleasant, he has removed my WP:Rollback rights. I don't see any valid reason for him removing them, especially considering that he noted that the majority (the vast majority, from my own knowledge) of my WP:Patrolling is fine, and since I stated, "If you are going to nitpick through my edit history for reverts that you don't like because I didn't revert in the way that you would have, you might as well go through and nitpick the edits of various other WP:Patrollers who revert just like I do." On my user talk page, he suggests that I am not willing to address criticism and change my actions accordingly. On the contrary, I am willing to address criticism and do it often, but explained that I generally disagree with Protonk's take on WP:Patrolling and that I was clearly frustrated with him due to carry-over frustration from my recent WP:ANI case (currently shown above). And as for "change my actions accordingly," the way that Protonk would WP:Patrol does not equate to "the right way to WP:Patrol."

I propose that Protonk's removal of my WP:Rollback rights be overturned as an insufficient cause for removal. I will alert the WP:Rollback, Wikipedia:STiki, WP:Huggle, WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:Film talk pages to this discussion, since those first three pages concern the tools discussed and since I am significantly involved with reverting content regarding those WP:WikiProjects. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)