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 directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.


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

Use of administrator privileges

Noticeboard archives


Wikipediocracy doxxing[edit]

After vast acres of discussion there is insufficient support for a site ban for Tutelary and, much more narrowly, no consensus for a BLP topic ban. I won't attempt to summarise the main arguments - they are in the thread if anyone really wants to read through them again. Good-faith and compelling arguments were advanced on both sides, along with some less useful contributions. As a small-a administrative issue I've closed the rest of the thread subheaders along with the TBAN one because the TBAN proposal was the last significant matter under discussion. However if there are side issues that people still considered "alive" then let me know on my talkpage so I can revisit them individually. Am also happy to discuss the overall close if required. However please note the close reflects a reading of consensus from this discussion, and not any personal views. Euryalus (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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. (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. (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. (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. (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)


Um, regarding this edit, which some unknown "Pudeo" decided to harp 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 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 -- (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] -- (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)

  • This is what has become of ANI? - theWOLFchild 07:44, 26 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? -- (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


  • 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 (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 -- (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC) β€” (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 -- (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 -- (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 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 -- (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 -- (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. (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)

    Edit: I've struck out portions of my comment which I'm no longer confident of. I sincerely apologise for any offence cause. I didn't look that well in to the case, since as I mentioned, I do not believe we can come to a conclusion here on wikipedia given that a fair amount of the evidence was outside of wikipedia and not anything Tutelary wishes discussed here. I now appreciate the evidence isn't very clear cut (in particular, I've seen suggestion of identification in cases where it didn't seem to matter before it seemed to be an issue anywhere and other stuff which have given me pause for thought whereas I was previously under the impression the idenfication elsewhere was always clearcut different from here).

    However given the sensitivity of the issue, I should have taken greater care and can only apologise again. I still think that it will be helpful for arbcom to look in to this, particularly given the hacking allegations. (And either way, this is a good example of why. I obviously should have just said to send it to arbcom. Unfortunately, I let my desire to send a clear message about unacceptable behaviour overide that without even properly looking in to the case.) I'm fine with my struck out comments being removed point blank, but suspect it will be more confusing and I don't think I said anything which wasn't unfortunately already mentioned.

    Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 22 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)
The evidence is from the Wikipediocracy blog post that is being used as evidence against Tutelary.
1. How do you know that Tutelary is a minor?
The Wikipediocrats cyberstalked the kid and found "written and photographic evidence which suggests that [Tutelary] is in fact a young man attending a high school in [censored]".
2. Do you imply that Tutelary is trans
The blog claims that Tutelary initially identified as male, and later as transgendered, before identifying as female. This pattern is not unusual among transgendered women who were assigned the male gender at birth.
3. and that everyone who supports a topic/site ban is "transphobic"?'
No, I did not say this. But referring to Tutelary as "he" (which many have done) when she self-identifies as female is transphobic. Using the allegation that Tutelary has previously identified with other genders as "proof" that she is a fraud of a woman is also transphobic.
Of course, it is possible that none of this is actually true, and that the bloggers made everything up.
--Joshua Issac (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You believe Wikipediocracy that Tutelary is a minor but you don't believe them that Tutelary is a man pretending to be a woman (to advance his POV and get access to people's computers)? Why? Didn't Wikipediocracy present evidence for the second claim and none for the first? Who are the many editors who knowingly referred to Tutelary as he? Transphobia is the dislike or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. Are you insinuating that Tutelary is transgender and that people support a site/topic ban because they dislike transgender people? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, allegedly, claims to be transgender, and WO are disputing her identity. (talk) 09:57, 25 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)
There's quite a bit of talk about a site ban. But I'm against a topic ban too, or any other action against this person (just to be clear). Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 26 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).
  • Support site ban We are here to build an encyclopedia, not look at this rubbish. Op47 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a ban based on these vague, political, cobbled together charges. Wincent77 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Oppose= 32 / Support = 23

WP:NOTAVOTE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 29 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 (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 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] -- (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 (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. (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. (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If I may intrude in a discussion for which I am woefullly underqualified. When I looked briefly at one of the "Tutelary" posts at Wikipediocracy, my first thought was, well, how do we know that's truly the same person? Anybody could register at Wikipediocracy with the name Tutelary. We all know it's not at all uncommon for people to do worse things under the cover of Internet anonymity. I once caught my son posing as a girl to get closer to girls online (he was about 13). To me, one thing speaks screams in favor of this theory: Tutelary seems like an intelligent person; why would an intelligent person, seeking to mislead us at Wikipedia, go to Wikipediocracy and blow their cover? Like we'd never discover that? Talk about implausible. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:49, 1 October 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 -- (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 -- (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 -- (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? -- (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)
  • Oppose any closure until the TBAN/BAN discussion is determined. The focus is on Tutelary, not Kaletony or Titanium Dragon. Tutelary's fate needs to be determined one way or the other before the discussion can be satisfactorily closed. KonveyorBelt 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I meant about closure: determine consensus and close. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Why? It's obvious too many editors are too naive/ignorant to understand that allowing an anti-feminist MRA advocate pose as transgendered, join a task force, disrupt processes, insert numerous BLP violations, and then use the Chelsea Manning case as a protective coating is very much a net negative to the project. Too many well meaning editors want diffs that can't be provided. Either because of 'outing' or because they have been rev del'd for BLP violations. The process is a joke. Hold on a minute while I look the other way as some dude is yanking my chain. Who did it? There are only two people in the room, but I can't accuse the other guy because he's wearing his Chelsea invisi-cloak. Dave Dial (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am neither naive nor ignorant – nor insensitive to concerns about anti-feminism. It has become abundantly clear that the "diffs that can't be provided" can't be provided because they do not exist, not because they were revdeled. Perhaps too many editors just want to be able to ban editors whom they dislike. I can think of quite a few other editors whom I happen to dislike, in fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh......smh. Dave Dial (talk) 6:56 pm, Yesterday (UTCβˆ’4)

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

Titanium Dragon's topic ban[edit]

Closing as the issue has since been resolved in discussion between Gamaliel and Titanium Dragon, on Gamaliel's talkpage. Concerns re WP:INVOLVED and re the actual topic ban were raised but were non-starters here. The "involved" argument was not supported by other editors, and the value of retaining the ban itself never really got started as a conversation. If anyone really wants to pursue these further they might consider raising them on the relevant admin's talkpage. In passing I note Titanium Dragon has long since moved on to productively editing other topics. So, y'know, good then. Euryalus (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

  • I hesitate to say anything that will delay the bot from archiving this, but I think that it should be noted that Gamaliel has topic banned Titanium Dragon from the Quinn/Gamers pages under the BLP discretionary sanctions (a decision with which I personally agree). I doubt that anything else is going to come of these discussions, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will close this discussion soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I just want to point out that I did not start this new sub-section. Someone else added the header later. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic-ban. There is considerable evidence that NPOV of the article is seriously lacking and at least he should contribute on the talk page. There are also serious BLP violations in the article about the portrayal of so-called "gamers" that hasn't generated any redactions. Titanium Dragon's contributions are not disruptive. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic banned user continuing to edit at Gamergate controversy[edit]

User:Titanium Dragon was topic banned by User:Gamaliel two days ago, but he has again started editing the article and Talk page, apparently because "it is going to be appealed". Can something be done about this? Woodroar (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed that bans were hard-coded. I had spoken to Gamaliel on his talk page about it, and noticed that I still had the ability to edit the article, and had assumed he changed his mind. Apparently I was in error, and such bans simply are not hard coded. The edits have been reverted. I'm sorry, I have little understanding of how such things work mechanically; I had assumed there was a system in place to bar people from editing such articles, but I suppose I can see why that would be difficult now that I think about it, as category tags only go so far. I shan't do it again. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
user:NeilN has explained things a bit better to me. That being said, I have a question: @Tarc: has been topic banned from things having to do with transgender issues, and part of the whole GamerGate mess is the fight that Zoe Quinn had with The Fine Young Capitalists, the former accusing the later of transphobia. Does that mean he shouldn't be working on those articles as well? Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice deflection attempt there, but no; that's be like a prohibition on editing Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil just because a person in the book/movie is a drag queen. Quinn's critique of the FYC over their transgender rules does not make this a transgender topic, but I'll refrain from commenting further on that small aspect of this (and to my knowledge I have not) just to be 100% in the clear. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Woodroar was correct to bring this violation to the community's attention, but now that Titanium Dragon has corrected his mistake, which appears to have been made in good faith, I see no reason to block and suggest this section be closed lest it get sidetracked into unrelated issues. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon has violated their topic ban yet again, immediately after acknowledging they know exactly what the ban entails. Enough's enough.--CΓΊchullain t/c 03:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That is from Gamaliel's talk page in discussion of this very ban, because I feel that the ban was made in error because the material in question is found in reliable sources which had been previously noted on that page (several of which are presently or have been used as cites by the article). Surely you can discuss being banned from something with the person who banned you on their talk page? :\ Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You are allowed to appeal your ban and it does seem that is what you are doing on Gamaliel's talk page. See WP:BANEX for a list of exceptions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I note that the user in question has once again posted unsupported accusations about living people in the process of appealing their topic ban. I have redacted the claim and strongly suggest that it is counterproductive for you to make unsupported accusations about living people when appealing a topic ban imposed because you made unsupported accusations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
He was plainly referencing this article in Cinema Blend. It does not explicitly identify Quinn, but she and her associates are the ones they are talking about. This claim of doxxing was apparently made due to Quinn responding to a tweet from her PR rep Maya Kramer that contained the TFYC guy's Facebook account. Although the offending tweet appears to have been nuked you can still find traces of the conversation between Quinn, Kramer, and another individual. This connection to Quinn is made explicit in GameRanx. Suffice to say, TD knew Cinema Blend alluded to the doxxing, but did not remember that they left the identity of the culprit unclear. From what I can tell, this is typically where he runs afoul of BLP. He fills in the blanks with stuff he already knows without realizing the sources do not explicitly state what he is stating. Of course, I don't know what he said in these other instances since the evidence has been shredded by various involved admins.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
So he was misusing and misrepresenting the content of reliable sources to present his personal opinions about living people because he didn't like what was actually found in the reliable sources. Good to know we agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am saying that he filled in the blanks in his head and thought that the sources explicitly said it when he really just knew what they were talking about.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
...which is precisely what is prohibited by WP:SYNTH β€” we don't allow people to synthesize from multiple reliable sources a new claim not explicitly found in any one of them. The fact that the only reliable source directly addressing the issue intentionally omitted Zoe Quinn's name is significant. It means the only reliable source directly addressing the issue made an editorial decision not to make an explicit claim about Quinn's involvement. If the source didn't make that claim, it is absolutely prohibited to build a chain of primary sources and use them to make inferences about what the reliable source might or might not have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am saying any "synth" or "unsourced" statement was inadvertent due to him actually knowing what sources are talking about yet not processing that they did not actually say what they are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it as necessary to worry too much here about alleged topic ban violations on Gamaliel's talk page at the moment, unless they're so egregious that they require immediate attention in which case it should only really happen after the material has been oversighted or at least revdeleted (or alternatively by privately alerting an admin). While of course, any admin could block Titanium Dragon for topic ban violations, when they occur in a stated attempt to appeal the topic ban on the issuing admin's talk page and the issuing admin appears to be actively engaged in the discussion, unless said admin asks for help, it's probably best to let them deal with it, notifying them if there's something you think they may have missed. It looks like Gamaliel has already warned TD to be careful in what they post, in particular to focus on the appeal and not in engaging with other contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Why was he topic banned? (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Because he kept posting material that violated WP:BLP and had to be expunged from the pages' histories.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Flushed down the memory hole? (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is seen as having some authority, you can't use it to slander living people, or make wild accusations about what may have happened in their private lives. You can, for instance, imagine what would happen if somebody wrote an article about you in the style that editors like Tutelary and Titanium Dragon were hoping to write for Zoe Quinn. Many people would take it seriously, even though the whole GamerGate thing looks like a mad conspiracy from the outside. That is why we have these sanctions -- (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
But the article already appears to slander living persons like Adam Baldwin. I don't see how discussing which sources belong in an article, on a talk page, violates BLP. You are being WP:UNCIVIL by implying Tutelary or Titianium Dragon are some kind of bully or egregious BLP violators, when let's remember they were both doxxed and the Wikipedia community is voting to *ban them sitewide* as a response.
Seriously. Your reaction to editors getting doxxed is "lets ban the victims!"? Hello? Earth to Wikipedia? (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Titanium Dragon was doxxed long before the GamerGate shit happened. Don't conflate the two events. And Adam Baldwin is mentioned once on the article as having made it a hashtag and then not mentioned, again.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Titanium Dragon was doxxed on 9.07 as a reaction to the "GamerGate shit". Whoever did it was trying to intimidate him and other editors from contributing to the article. And it is downright horrifying to see the perpetrators enabled and encouraged like this. (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I was actually not aware that the doxxing occurred because of his participation in the GG pages.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat worrying to see Gamaliel@ topic banning someone when they are making reverts like this one with an edit summary of "Anyone trying to get this article neutral will get their edits reverted: BLP" where the mention of the [redacted] hash tag is treated as a BLP violation, and very WP:BITEY reverts like this one where the newbies only error was not to post at the bottom of the talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Just to correct you here, the "anyone trying to get this article neutral" bit was the section heading, not a comment from Gamaliel. He did make other comments that I pointed out in the collapsed section above that you can examine. I agree that he is too involved in the subject to take administrative action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You're damn right I'm treating it as a BLP violation, because it's a slur directed at the subject of the article and Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for such slurs. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
How is that a slur. A slur is a bad word. Acknowledging the presence of a hashtag or phrase on a TALK PAGE isn't a freaking BLP violation. How can you discuss an article if you are threatening to ban people for DISCUSSING what to put in the article? If it's a slur why are people like Adam Baldwin being associated with a movement the wiki article describes as anti-feminist and deeply misogynistic? (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a slur. In the past week, it's become plain to see that Gamaliel, Rylong, and NorthBySouth are White Knights for Zoe Quinn -- who shouldn't even have a Wikipedia page to begin with, being that she's as notable as belly button lint. At best, she deserves an inclusion in the GameGate Scandal page and nothing more. Anyhow, luckily for me, my editors from the media outlet I work for have given me the go ahead and write an expose on the whole mess. Users from Wikipedia who decided to make this a non-neutral story will be on blast and my guys will stand behind me after I do it. That's only part of it. I am appalled with this whole situation. I don't believe there's a media blackout so much as the media is not giving everyone the whole picture in this regard. I'm even more horrified with the McCarthy-esque tactics displayed by Wikipedia. TitaniumDragon didn't deserve to be banned just because Gamaliel, Ryulong, and NorthBySouth are going against Wiki policy to keep the full story from seeing the light of day. It's disgusting. I watched a Wikipedia editor (who actually WROTE a policy one of these clowns were violating) get browbeaten over his knowledge. The three guys in question are bullies and nothing more. I encourage anyone and everyone who fights for the truth to keep fighting over this article so that it's finally neutral. TabascoMan77 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If you contact me via email with your press credentials, you can interview me for your expose. As a professional journalist, you are of course aware that no reputable publication would run such an expose without contacting participants from all sides of the issue who are willing to be interviewed. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Daily DDT at FanSided is a particularly professional or reputable publication. (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't work for The Daily DDT at FanSided. Oh, and I'm not asking for an interview, Gamaliel. I don't need it because it'll just be more pro-Zoe spew. Your actions on this board...they kinda speak for themselves. A good "expose" doesn't need your personal words. They just report and nail their target to the wall based on what you've already done. Big smiles! TabascoMan77 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am impressed at the level of journalistic integrity on display in your comment. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Tabascoman77, are you one of the people who were attempting to bother me all evening on Twitter? Also, you should recognize that Titanium Dragon was not banned because he was attempting to push a pro-GG agenda. He was banned because he kept making statements concerning Zoe Quinn that violated WP:BLP which is mentioned throughout this fucking thread.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 16:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
No. And, I've heard the WP:BLP excuse. The thing that TD already explained was being misused because you guys don't understand what it is. I have a Twitter and if I wanted to bug you there, you'd know because my username would make it fairly obvious. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Indef Block for USER:Tabascoman77[edit]

Closed as "nobody cares," per Black Kite. Someone saying they plan to write an off-wiki article is not immediately an on-wiki "incident" requiring admin intervention. Speculation on the article content is just that. let's see if/when its published, and we can revisit if anybody cares at the time. Euryalus (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I believe the words cited directly above provide reason to issue an indefinite block, as it directly is attempting to create a chilling effect within the articles in question as well as here in this ANI. User will be notified immediately after this is posted. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User Notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the user also advocates disruption to make a point at the articles in question. Also against policy. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Indef block on what basis? This is the second example I see on this page of some editors trying to make Wikipedia into a battleground with other websites. You don't ban editors for criticizing the Wikipedia community. Kelly hi! 09:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. On what grounds? That I said I was going to write an article (on another site not even RELATED to Wikipedia) about the Zoe Quinn White-Knighting and blockade of the McCarthy-esque behavior and blackout of neutral information found on Wikipedia? ZOMG YOU JUST PROVED MY ENTIRE POINT. Thanks for that. This is why I've stopped using Wikipedia. You guys have gotten so weird. It's like you think you've got your own little government and can hit people with some sort of stick from afar. REALITY CHECK: I haven't done anything to warrant a "block". You have no power. If you block me, I will appeal it and your goofy asses will STILL wind up in the expose article, detailing this sort of bullying behavior. TabascoMan77 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
On what grounds? Simple, as I said above. User is attempting to create a chilling effect[[60]] through threatening an expose after denying actual journalism (aka actually interviewing both sources), further "encourage anyone and everyone who fights for the truth to keep fighting over this article so that it's finally neutral" is calling for individuals to disrupt the articles to make a point. Not to mention his fun filled personal attacks at my user page[61] and general battle ground mentality. Also just because you don't want me on your talk page, that doesn't include mandatory notifications such as discussions at ANI. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? Encouraging everyone to write a neutral article is "disruptive"? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means... TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Editing repeatedly against policy and concensus is disruptive and tenditious behavior. Further It has been repeatedly shown that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT does not work as an appropriate venue for attempting to protest actions. Maybe you should read policies, it might make it less embarrassing for you. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't edited anything on Zoe Quinn or GamerGate, genius. I don't apply. I simply said I am writing an article for my news outlet, criticizing Wikipedia's editing policies in regards to the current GamerGate fiasco. I am entitled to do such. If you don't like this, then complain to my editor after you read it. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a difference between criticism and threats designed to create a chilling effect. Any offsite comments designed to create a chilling effect that also contain personal information about Wikipedia editors fall under the policy WP:OUTING. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Tivanir has a point, but the chilling effect started at the beginning of this month with the Wikipediocracy article, and instead of take a strong stand against WP:OUTING, the Wikipedia community started a vote to ban the victims. You yourself commented on their article, and I don't get why. They obviously don't like you, and they don't deserve any attention or encouragement at all. They're bullies pure and simple, and the best way to deal with bullies is by starving them of attention. (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, and my usual approach over the years has been to ignore offsite bullies and trolls. This time I couldn't resist tweaking their hypocrisy. Gamaliel (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not using any form of Doxxing in my article. Sorry if there was some misunderstanding there. The article is about Zoe Quinn, GamerGate, the media's portrayal and the Wikipedia community joining in the media's non-neutral approach. If there's any "chilling effect", it's what IP Guy said: you have a non-neutral Wiki article, a website (in Wikipediocracy) which reports on Wikipedia's mistakes who, for some reason, has decided to decided to ignore [redacted] then Dox Titanium Dragon because Doxxing is selectively cool and only accepted when it's against somebody you're opposing. How come nobody's condemned the Dox against TD here? Is it because it went against the guy who's been trying to make the article neutral? And is the new thing banning those who support the people trying to make both sides heard? In any case, none of this will go anywhere. I'll just write what I have to write and we'll all go on with our lives. TabascoMan77 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Many people condemned Wikipediocracy's doxxing. I condemn it. Note that TD was topic banned by me for repeatedly doing what you just did, making serious unsubstantiated allegations against the subject of the article. Neither talk page of that article or this page are forums for airing such accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, was that the same one where an Al Jazeera article couldn't be used because "it had no byline"? Or was that the one where NorthBySouth wouldn't use a source because WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT? Or was that the one where he NorthBySouth tried to dictate BLP to an editor who helped write the policy? Or was that the one where -- you know, I'm just gonna stop there and say that TD had a pretty good gripe. TabascoMan77 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That editor "who helped write the policy" (or claimed to have done so under a different account) also said that allegations against living persons are perfectly fine as long as they're quoted by someone, which is absolutely false. I'm not sure if you are familiar with our BLP policies or just feel that they go too far, but they exist to at least partly to protect the project. Editors who repeatedly post unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons need their editing privileges curtailed. It's really that simple. Woodroar (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? So, the source in question is not allowed on Zoe Quinn's page to back up the argument because of BLP because it's not a "verifiable source"...but it's totally allowed here?[[62]]? That's WEIRD, man. Just weird...heh. Once again, it's WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT on full display. TabascoMan77 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not being used to make allegations of criminal activity against a living person at The Fine Young Capitalists article. In fact, it's use is consistent with interview/primary/SPS guidelines, and statements that could be seen as controversial are backed up with reliable third-party sources. Woodroar (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So, as long as they don't use the part of the interview where Rappart says that Quinn was a problem, the interview can be included but, if anyone tries to use the part where Rappart questions Quinn's motives and intentions, it's not ok?'s WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT then? TabascoMan77 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I'd support an indef block quite yet, but Tabascoman77 should probably be aware that threats to "out" editors count as personal attacks. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess you could run an expose based on usernames alone, but I'm honestly not sure that would have much of an effect. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If anything he should be blocked for attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground and becoming a disruptive single purpose account to focus on the GamerGate garbage.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This just in: WP:NOBODYCARES. Love the hyperbole, though. It's like Argument Steroids. TabascoMan77 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Never mind, Support. I was kind of hoping he'd at least behave himself in this discussion. Unfortunately, the combination of a) continued threats, b) general incivility, and c) attitude that he cannot possibly be wrong is not helping his case. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So let's see: this thread has gone from being about an editor who may have been pretending to be female to being about an editor who is pretending to be an investigative journalist. It's getting tiresome, and far past the point where there is actually a dispute to be resolved. I propose starting an office pool on how long it will take until this ANI thread is closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I truly don't care if he is a journalist or not. People shouldn't be attempting chilling affects, trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, make personal attacks, attempt to out, adopt a battle ground mental state, or fight for the "truth". The user has managed to show they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh noes. So scared. Seriously. There may be tears. Keep editing the article until it's neutral, folks. That's what this place was supposed to be about. It's obviously not. The rules have been bent by these guys to no end. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Way to reinforce exactly what I am providing diffs for. You hit rock bottom and you are starting serious excavation. WP:ROPE doesn't even need to be considered at this point, that is apparent. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to intimidate me and threaten blocks because I am criticizing the methods of Wiki editors on a news site not related to Wikipedia, be my guest. But, be warned, your little "blocking" escapade will fall under WP:Bullying, WP:Harassment, and also violate WP:Civility. Other than that: sorry that you don't agree with the tone of the article I am writing. I have, not once, threatened to out anyone, personally. I can (and will) use user names. As such, the only person who is giving themselves enough rope is yourself, each time you continue to push for a block just because you don't like an editor. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you honestly believe you have a leg to stand on since all of my comments have been linked extensively to different policies feel free to open up an ANI. Bringing up what I believe are policy violations for the site isn't bullying, I am not following you to articles so it isn't harassment and while I could be a lot more civil I am not the one that has devolved into personal attacks. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"Bringing up what I believe are policy violations...". And there's your key defense. I haven't broken policy. And you are in violation of WP:Civility, as per your own confession about "being a lot more civil". You guys are in Lynch Mob Mode here. Seriously, it's time to just back off and walk away. TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes everyone brings up what they believe are policy violations. Its up to an administrator or the community to actual agree and take action or abdicate the individual after that, as unless they are egregious WP:BLP concerns or similar it is uncommon to see unilateral action. You have violated NPA multiple times by alluding to me being a simpleton or derogatory use of the word genius. Further just about everyone on this entire site could stand to be more civil, as I have yet to meet anyone that could not be more calm about situations. And please if you really want try a civility block since precedent states that individuals can be grossly uncivil with no action. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So I violated NPA "multiple times" by calling you a "simpleton" once? Also, you falsely accused me of "editing against policy and consensus" when I wasn't even editing Your "policy violations" accusation is ridiculous as is the block request. Really, it's time to walk away.. TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
NPA 1 [63] NPA 2, specifically "I haven't edited anything on Zoe Quinn or GamerGate, genius" uses genius in a deragatory fashion. Also I stated you advocated per WP:ADVOCATE that others disrupt the articles to make a point, to change it to your POV. Thats essentially calling for others to disrupt the project, even if you never edit the article directly, which is overall disruptive to the project. I view that as falling well within the boundries of the disruption policy spirit if not in the letter of the policy. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Last time: I already explained that I didn't make edits as you claimed. You said that I did. You were wrong. Secondly, I didn't advocate disruption in order to change the article to reflect "my POV". I said to fight to make the article neutral. That's not disruption, that's a plea to the Wikipedia community to do what this website is supposed to be doing: presenting objective and neutral pieces for readers. If "fighting" includes intense discussions FROM BOTH SIDES to get this policy goal achieved, then so be it. You need to end this charade. Stop twisting things so they fit your accusations and stop putting words in my mouth, Tivanir2. Your attempts to get me blocked are retaliatory in nature and violate BLOCKING#NOPUNITIVE. I have enough WP:ROPE to push an ANI for WP:Harassment and believe me when I say that I really don't want to do that because I really don't have the time or energy to put either of us through that. So, it's time to stopbeating a dead horse and I urge you to walk away. TabascoMan77 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a block as clearly not here to collaborate. His bluster above that he hasn't done anything to warrant a block and will appeal it (to whom? (to the courts? is that a threat?)), combined by saying that he has stopped using Wikipedia (if so, why is he blustering?) is one of the stranger responses to a block proposal that I have seen. I would support either an indef as not here to contribute or a preventive block to keep him from building the case for a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Another stupid lynch mob attempt. Trying to block someone indefinitely for saying they will write a news article criticizing the behavior of other editors is not exactly a good idea. Labeling him a GamerGate SPA when he has not even edited the relevant articles and has made more contributions to the article on V than here is even more ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Yet another stupid attempt to live up to your user name and enable trolling" would be an accurate description of your response. Points for the hilarious "lynch mob" hyperbole. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yup. Thanks for that, Devil. Now, can we please close this stupid Topic Ban thing about me now? Oppose, FWIW, even though I really honestly don't care but, when in WikiRome... TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Block ASAP This guy is no obviously more a journalist -- professional or amateur -- than Pee Wee Herman, and the 7th-grade "clever" attempt to game the WP:NLT rationale is laughable. Just pull the trigger on this clumsy trolling and block him already. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I call for a counter block on Calton for violation of WP:Civility. You can't block me because you don't like me or because I am critical of Wiki Methods. Move along. TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I hate to respond to this sort of crap, really, but, yeah short block, I dunno, a day or two I guess, just to get some bandwidth back from the nonsense. Begoon talk 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anybody even know what this is about or are we just making block/oppose remarks because reasons? I said I was writing an article (away from Wikipedia) that will be about the entire Quinn affair and that it will be critical of WP for failing to make the Quinn article neutral (as it should be) and I also called on the WP Community to fight to make it neutral, not biased, not POV -- NEUTRAL. Now, I'm being threatened with a block because somebody doesn't like the fact that I said this stuff? Wow. WP:BLOCKING#NOPUNITIVE, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:BULLYING...I can't even believe that WP has become this way. "Don't say you want it neutral and don't be critical of Wikipedia or else you'll be blocked." This is ridiculous. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but I truly don't know how to break this to you gently, so here it is: we're bored with you now. Enjoy the rest of your thread. Begoon talk 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So, blocking because reasons, then. WP:BLOCKING#NOPUNITIVE was all you had to say. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"to make it neutral, not biased, not POV -- NEUTRAL." This suggests another problem to me: you claim that the version of the article you support is neutral, whereas the alternatives you disagree with are written with a POV. You have no evidence for this idea whatsoever; please provide some. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The mere fact that APG Nation is not considered valid because part of it actually serves to tell the truth about what Quinn did is just one thing. As Woodroar tried to explain, the article is, apparently, only allowed if it isn't critical of Quinn. The fact remains that APG's interview really is notable and you cannot, in good conscience, say that it CAN be included in TFYC's own Wiki article because it's positive but NOT include it in Quinn's article because it might make readers think she's not made of gold. As was pointed out, to do so would be accusing APG of fabricating the interview with TFYC and we both know that's not the case. Yes, there are references to Eron Gjoni posting what she did -- but the article doesn't go into any real detail as to what Gjoni even wrote except to say "he wrote about her". Gjoni's testimony IS relevant, considering what GamerGate was all about in the first place. There's even Wiki User "NorthBySouth" who says, "We don't care who she slept with," to which Titanium Dragon pointed out that it doesn't matter whether or not HE cares about -- it's relevant. Again, the objection, "I don't care" is WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. The rest of the article paints Zoe as victim -- which she is, when it comes to the horrifying level of harassment she suffered. However, as "GamerGate" deals with alleged corruption in video game journalism and there is evidence that Quinn had some very close relationships with journalists at those outlets, all that seems to be missing. So, as I said, the article is non-neutral and I am not the only one who thinks that. Keep all the other stuff about how 4Chan harassed her and bullied her and how she's a feminist and fighting for the common woman. That's all good stuff. Post the OTHER SIDE, TOO. My other suggestion was to delete the Quinn page altogether because she isn't notable past being a regular, everyday programmer, and put her in the "GamerGate" scandal page instead. But, again, everyone's got their armor on and that won't happen. So, the article is biased and non-neutral. TabascoMan77 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
TFYC can say what they want concerning themselves but their statements regarding someone else cannot be published on that other page. And unless you have proof of your accusations against Quinn in your post, you should redact it lest it be expunged from the record entirely for violating WP:BLP.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you're willfully ignoring the context of that discussion. "We don't care who she slept with" because the reliable sources don't care either. The reliable sources used to support this article mention one and only one of the allegations as significant and of public interest: the allegation that one relationship created a conflict of interest with a journalist. That allegation has been disproven. The reliable sources have ignored Gjoni's other claims, presumably concluding that none of them amount to anything more than a lover's quarrel. The fact that those sources have ignored them means that we, too, ignore them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight: you can include a Cracked article written by Zoe regarding other people -- but you can't include TFYC in an interview, talking about somebody else? Is that really how this works? And I'm not deleting any accusations against Quinn. Eron Gjoni wrote an expose, accusing Quinn of sleeping with a writer. [64] And he DOES have evidence of it on his own blog, which we can't include because it's SPS. Saying it here isn't publishing it as a fact. Stop deleting this. Do me a favor and stop swinging the WP:BLP bat. It's not a bludgeon.
And you're now choosing to ignore APG's interview and Adam Sessler's own Twitter where he admits running away with Zoe Quinn. That SHOULD count since you used the same rationale to justify including Cracked as a source. TabascoMan77 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
ANI is for discussing behavioral/misconduct issues. If you have editing concerns, it'd be best to bring those to the talk page of the article in question. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK the Cracked article Quinn wrote isn't used at all. And your mouth is still writing a check your ass can't cash when it comes to the stuff you're spewing.β€”RyΕ«lΓ³ng (η‰η«œ) 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Uh...yeah, it is: [65] Also, watch your language. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's a good idea. Go away and write your article (which frankly no-one will care about) and stop wasting everyone's time here. WP:NOTHERE is pretty wide-ranging, and someone is going to click that button fairly shortly. I hope that's clear. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"Wasting everyone's time?" I'm only here because I was called out to respond to some arbitrary bullshit "indef block" for no reason other than suggesting Wikipedia be neutral and you're here telling me that I'm "wasting everyone's time" and I should just stop defending myself against violation of Punitive Blocking? And Uncivil to boot, regarding the upcoming piece. Considering the site has tens of thousands of hits a day, I kinda question your dismissal. Just saying. Here's a better idea:Pick a lane. You can't call me for an indef block for no reason, then suggest I should leave and just let it happen. I WOULD help edit the Quinn and GamerGate pieces but I am frustrated with the lack of neutrality and the blocking of any piece that tells the other side of the story. It's easy to say WP:NOTHERE when you're discouraging a 50-50 article. TabascoMan77 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No-one here actually believes you're here to "improve" the GG articles, apart from, like a number of accounts that have suddenly miraculously reactivated themselves since the semi-protection was put in place, to push a particular POV. And it should be fairly clear by now that isn't going to happen. So, as I said, your best chance of "telling it like it is" is to write your article, because it's irrelevant to Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah! You're accusing me of sock puppetry? That's cute. Check my history. I've been with Wikipedia long before GamerGate or Zoe Quinn. On top of that, I haven't even touched the Quinn and GG articles. So the fact that you're using language like "you're pushing a particular POV" is completely confusing to me. But that's not a surprise. TabascoMan77 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Did I say you were a sock? No. I merely pointed out the undeniable fact that you have returned to Wikipedia after a significant break from editing to concentrate on this article, like very many "old" accounts. That part is simple fact. As for "pushing a POV", one only has to read your contributions. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Anything in particular? I might remind you that we were all green Wikipedians once. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Above, I suggested an office pool, to guess when this ANI thread will be closed. Now, I'm just suggesting that it, all of it, be closed. We're long past done here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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 [66], 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 ([67]) 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), collapsed section here:-[68]. 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:-[69] nb para 3 of changes panel, 'Where this discussion has got to … 90 minutes later, he replied here:-[70] nb end of para 1 of changes panel 'So, the review goes in the article.' … some 3 minutes later, he made this edit:-[71] 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:-[72], (which one gets to via the VICE site here:- [73] … 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:-[74], (or fuller picture here:-[75]), 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 [76] - 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 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 :-[77]. … 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:-[78] Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The 'comedy' continues … UrbanVillager, who says 'Pincrete keeps canvassing' , had the following interchange yesterday :-[79] (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) … … nb minor correction to Diannaa, Diannaa says on the prev. diff that it was Pincrete who removed the 'VICE review', it was actually Bobrayner. added by Pincrete Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 23 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 [80] 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 [81]. 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 film, 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.
The 'weasel words' you refer to were actually inserted by UrbanVillager in November last year. I was not editing on WoC at all at the time (for over a year). Of the other 3 involved editors who wrote that section, one has since retired and two have been permanently banned for abuse of multiple accounts.
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: [82] 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: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]
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 [104] 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 was 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:-[105]. Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Corrections 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' [106] 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) … … … Also bobrayner, I believe that NO editor has ever wanted to insert: "One of thirteen Serbian films selected for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"", though there ARE two issues connected with this, one is the 'peacocky' use of 'Official selection' (when this is not a phrase used by the festival), the second is whether we are ALLOWED to mention that it is in 'Serbian/Balkan categories that the film has been chiefly shown.
Bob, you were clearly angry when you answered Tiptoethrutheminefield, and didn't choose your examples well. HOWEVER, I wholly agree with your main point, recent examples of what UrbanVillager has characterised as 'vandalism' or 'not constructive edits', include 1) placing dead link tags on links that had been known to be dead for at least two years, tags which have 'mysteriously disappeared' previously 2) removing a statement about a LP, which had been on the page UN-referenced for two years, because I added a 'ref' to it, and 3) restoring 'culture critic', when I had replaced it with 'cultural critic'. above text added to by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 22 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, on a simple factual matter, 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:-[107], 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)

Comedy turns to farce, just to note, that while this 'case' sits on the ANI, apparently unnoticed, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to edit the article according to his own tastes, in flagrant violation of just about every known value and guideline and without any attempt at consensus, demanding that OTHER editors should 'dot every I', while simultaneously demanding his own right to edit wholly according to his own wishes, and in clear bad faith. Luckily a newly arrived editor has prevented this from happening excessively. I will post relevant diffs when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)(UTC)

Key issues in this ANI[edit]

This section was originally formatted by Pincrete as a series of sub-sections. Reformatted and collapsed the following day under advise from Ricky81682.

NOTE the discussion which follows between Tiptoethrutheminefield and Pincrete concerns the previously formatted sub-sections (ie the content of the collapsed section) Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE ALSO that it is just Pincrete's opinion that the above are the "key issues" in this ANI. Other opinions may differ. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Above 'Key issues' sub-section

Note to readers - all of the above sections, with the numerous sub-headings, were created by Pincrete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, I had already explained WHY I added the sub-headings in the para. immediately prior to them. My reason was that this ANI showed every sign of being ignored, I did my best to frame the sub-headings in a neutral fashion and to present the issues/accusations in chronological order in which they were made. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Because of the formatting and lack of signature it appeared as if Ricky81682 had made the post. Your text does not read like neutral to me: making a score or more unsupported serious allegations against an editor is not a good thing to do, even if you present them in the form of subheadings. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Sincere apologies to all if the formatting of the headings led to a mis-attribution. My supposed accusations are dealt with below Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ricky81682, I am happy to remove the sub-headings, (or for you to do so), if their presence is not constructive. You will understand, I hope why I placed them here. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC) This section was 're-sectioned' by Pincrete for clarityPincrete (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty subheadings with no information are not helpful. They add to the length of the contents page with nothing there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for UrbanVillager[edit]

UrbanVillager hasn't edited since the 17th. Is there something I'm missing? These complaints were ignored it seems. I'd suggest removing the empty subheadings above. So WP:BOOMERANG time: should we consider a topic ban against UrbanVillager? I'd suggest just to Weight of Chains for the time being. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Repeating what I said earlier - support. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In case it wasn't clear, I support a topic ban for UrbanVillager as well to just Weight of Chains for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - whenever I have looked, I found nothing of real substance against Urbanvillager, only unsubstantiated accusations that when investigated have been found to be hollow. If the above two editors have found something specific that is strong enough to merit a ban, would they please give some diffs. It is confusing given the scattergun-approach of the accusations made against Urbanvillager, so I could have missed something. I have however found there is substance to back up Urbanvillager's accusations against the two editors named at the start of all this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions against Bobrayner and Pincrete[edit]

NOTE: This section heading was added by Pincrete retrospectively to seperate topics as per suggestion by Ricky81682. Pincrete (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Bobrayner and Pincrete? We have seen from them numerous examples of bad faith, as well as blatant abuse by them of concepts like consensus and reliable sources. And some out and out lies too. Pincrete claims on 25th September [108] that "UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to edit the article according to his own tastes, in flagrant violation of just about every known value and guideline" - but UrbanVillager has made no edits at all since the 17th September. Then on 26th September we have the astonishing (and unsigned) post by Pincrete [109] claiming that UrbanVillage is a racist, is a sockpuppet, is running a single purpose account, has a "willfully perverse" behavior (whatever that is), has contempt for administrators, violates copyright, misuses procedures, misuses sources ("outlawed" sources? wtf!), and much more. And all without providing even a single supporting diff! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield please read more carefully, I have NEVER described UrbanVillager as a racist, I have said that he HAS used racist abuse sometimes and I have offered to provide the diffs.
I have NEVER, accused ANY editor of being a sockpuppet. If you look more carefully at the incident you drew attention to above involving RichardWilson78, you will see another editor asked a question on talk as to whether a completely new editor was a sockpuppet. I took the question OFF the talk page and answered 'very possibly' … I defy anyone to look at the actions of RichardWilson78:-[110] and not have the suspicion that puppetry or single purpose editing were POSSIBLE explanations, I hoped that doing this would 'cool down' the speculation. If you do not understand the difference between ACCUSING somebody and answering a direct question by saying 'possibly', perhaps you would tell me what form of words you think I should have used.
I have left NO unsigned posts here. You will see that I tried to be accurate about WHO is making the accusation and who supports it, that is why you will NOT see my name on some accusations because I did not/ have not/ do not make them. Similarly, you will not see other editor's names on accusations that are made by me alone. … β€¦ Correction: There is a single brief posting by me,(before the now re-formatted sub-headings) that may have been unsigned. The text makes it clear who was leaving the post, there was no intention to mislead, and I corrected the formatting when it was pointed out to me that it was probably unhelpful. correction added by:Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
My phrase on the 25th September post you link to is 'while this case sits on the ANI', (ie since Sept 11th), therefore the fact that UrbanVillager has not edited since Sept 17th, is at best irrelevant. However, would you like me to take you point by point through the 17th Sept edit :-[111], explaining WHY it violates BLP, RS and clearly did NOT have consensus (which you will see if you go to the 'next' diff.). I would add that UrbanVillager's quoting of your name on his edit reason, is a minor example of 'wilfully perverse' interpretation of WP guidelines.
Tiptoethrutheminefield, you are mis-quoting me in almost every particular in your last post. I have tried throughout to be clear, accurate and to not say anything which I cannot support. I have even corrected bobrayner when he was 'a bit carried away' in his choice of examples. I do not take very kindly to being accused of lying, on the basis of such a 'careless' reading of what I have written. However, let us assume that you are right for a moment about ME, how on earth do you justify including bobrayner in this sea of supposed 'bad faith'? Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps since you ask what I mean by 'outlawed sources', these include using IMDb as a source and using Youtube (or other copy vio) as sources, which he continues to do despite having been told by admin that they are not acceptable, nor are sources which are clearly 'mirrors'. … β€¦ pps which diffs would you like … I was advised to not provide too many? Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, your formatting makes discussion extraordinarily difficult here. Multiparagraph comments and unsigned subheadings are not standard practice for a reason. Tiptoethrutheminefield, when I said "These complaints were ignored it seems" I meant that accusations against Bobrayner and Pincrete seem to be ignored. If you want to propose topic bans for them as well, by all means put in a new subheading (since it is a new topic that is worth separating discussing) and make the proposal. For all parties, large (multi)-paragraph complaints and responses are going to be ignored as few people are going to wander into this mess. Talk:The Weight of Chains is a mess because editors all around want to spend time attacking other editors rather than actual discussion on the matter. Now, if someone can make a concise one or two sentence idea of the problem and a proposal that should help calm things down, we can try to resolve this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ricky81682, I will reformat the sub-sections into a single sub-section identifying the issues, also leaving a record of my actions. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete must start to provide diffs for each individual thing he alleges. In the above he accuses UrbanVillager of copyright violation by using Youtube as a source, but gives no diffs as proof of this. If this [112] is what Pincrete is referring to, it was decided there was no copy violation and the Youtube link was a valid source. In his above comment he also states "I have NEVER, accused ANY editor of being a sockpuppet" but in [113] he does, using the not very subtle "Rhymes with clock!" as an edit summary. And if UrbanVillager stopped editing on the 17th, why did Pincrete think it necessary to wait until the 25th to say that UrbanVillager was still editing in "flagrant violation of just about every known value and guideline"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, it is now very difficult for me to see any signs of good faith or 'even-handedness' in your posts. You've been an editor for less than 6 months, you have no involvement with the relevant pages. You have withdrawn NONE of the accusations you made about me, apologised for NO mis-quoting. You have not responded to Ricky81682's suggestion that if you want to propose sanctions against me you should start a new section with your reasons. I will leave others to judge which of us is acting in good faith. Pincrete (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, this ANI case is about you, not UrbanVillager, so there is actually no need to start a new section. The interactions between the various editors on The Weight of Chains article and relate articles seem to have descended into ill-disguised personalized aggression, so I suppose it is not surprising that some of your own aggression is starting to also be directed at me. I have not misquoted you, so no apologies are required. My "accusations" (as you call them) have (I think) been reasonable points presented reasonably, and have always been supported by diffs when required, so there is nothing I feel I should withdraw. It is actually difficult to assess UrbanVillager's place in all of it, such are your increasingly wild and repeatedly unsubstantiated allegations against that editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors than either of us as to whether there was a need for a new section here. You do not seem able to understand the difference between 'has ocassionally used racist abuse' and 'is a racist', you do not seem to understand the difference between LISTING that editors X and Y have made accusations A and B and 'Pincrete is making these accusations'. You do not seem to understand the difference between answering 'very possibly' (off talk), to a direct question with the explicit purpose of 'damping down' fruitless speculation and ACCUSING someone. You have not answered my question as to what you consider I SHOULD have replied to that question. You have shown no even-handedness in commenting on the EXPLICIT accusations made against me on talk by UV. You have 'set yourself up' as the final arbiter as to what is or is not a RS, what WP guidelines are etc.. For all of these reasons I doubt your good faith or wisdom. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC) ps of course 'rhymes with clock' is not subtle, it was a JOKE … … 'Shhhhhhh we don't speak about these things on talk' . Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, you want an example of 'racist abuse', this is not the worst, but it is recent and among the silliest, here:-[114]. (You will note in the edit reason:-Views are not "controversial" just because Bosniaks don't like someone.). The reason that this is 'silly' is because the offending text has been there since 22 August 2012, here:-[115]. I have NO idea, whether the original inserter is a 'Bosniak', I am certain that the 20-40 editors who have not queried this vague, unreferenced claim since, cannot possibly ALL be Bosniaks.
You want examples of copyvio try this collapsed section:-[116], this is two years after I first pointed out on talk that the synopsis is almost entirely 'cut and paste' from the film's website, and almost 4 years after the first copyvio warning. You want POSSIBLE video copyvio, look at the film maker's page and the 'media and lectures' part of that talk and at recent removal history on that and other pages. (I say POSSIBLE, because I am never SURE when it is either legal, or appropriately 'unpromotional' to use video as source - because I am not sure, I tag or note on talk, but do not remove offending material). Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That [117] edit summary is not "racist abuse", it was just an unsupported statement, a claim that a view is only "controversial" under a particular historiography. Urbanvillager was correct to remove that content, and you agreed that it was correct to remove it - "controversial" is a weasel-word at the best of times, and on this occasion it was unsupported by sources yet was fraudulently claiming to have a source. Urbanvillager should be congratulated for removing inappropriate content that had stood unnoticed for two years. The removed content was originally inserted by an editor who only ever made two edits [118] - a single purpose account if ever there was one. This seems to be another example showing the long-term nature of the attempts to sabotage this article. I'd be interested in knowing who placed the faked reference against that "controversial views" claim. The reference being cited by the time Urbanvillager removed the content,, makes no mention of the person having "controversial views". Regarding copyvio, you have not given any diffs. However, if it is this [119], then it is a very strange copyvio allegation - the deleted content consisted of just dates and lists of places: these are facts and facts cannot be copyrighted. To claim copyvio reasoning for the other removed content, the plot synopsis, is even more bizarre - there is no exact wording like it on the site. Are you or Diannaa claiming that any synopsis will be copyvio by its nature? If so, how does every other film article manage to have a synopsis? I see no copyvio at all in the deleted material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, make your proposal about sanctions against me if you feel you have a case. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps you are quite right, this particular remark is not 'racist abuse', what it is is a distasteful, completely superfluous introduction of race into a subject, when the writer could not possibly know the race of the inserter or the holder of the opinion, nor even less the umpteen editors - including principally himself - who had not queried it in over two years. This is not 'abuse', but introducing race into a subject where it has no relevance, for the purposes of characterising others, is 'racist'. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … … btw, it was very possibly me that placed - what you call - the 'fake' reference in the wrong place in the sentence about Mackenzie, (it should have been supporting his career, not his views) the ref was there for a few days only, following which I tidied ALL the refs in that section. To err is human you know. Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, 'Paris is a city' is a fact, 'Truffaut was filming there last week', is a claim. Besides you'll have to take it up with Diannaa and Dougweller and other administrators and editors who've recently removed copyvio from BM articles, because - as I've already said - I'm not an expert. PERSONALLY, I am more concerned with how the use of such material degrades the article, than with the legal dimension. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Saying that UrbanVillager is a single-purpose account is a fact, the editor does not edit at all outside of that singular focus. That's not wrong but that combined with the style of editing indicates that the editor may not be here for the right reasons. While I don't think the other editors have been ideal here, I don't think a topic ban is warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[edit]

This user's edits have all been undone.[120] β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk β€’ contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014

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)[121][122], urged people to "do some research" on me[123], 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."[124]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[125] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[126].
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.”[127] 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 [Later removal as actual unblocker identified and some explanation addedwithout 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)
Sorry for confusion. I see there is a sort of explanation now. So I struck both comments. I personally don't care if he continues to edit, I just don't want him harassing me any more. Hopefully that goal will be accomplished one way or the other. Meanwhile I'll be pursuing other means to make sure the comment could not have been interpreted as being about me, since a girl can't be too careful. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:44, 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.[128] 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 [129]. 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. [130] 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)
  • Oppose First - this s a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other. Collect (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You write this is a "common problem" and I agree; editors getting peeved at others and following them around around, reverting their talk page comments and casting aspersion upon them. (The bio thing obviously being uncommon). The interaction ban was not my idea. So just for those who have forgotten other options, the common thing to do is first ask for an admin to ask them to stop. (Note to self: better late than never start figuring out who the helpful admins are.) If that doesn't work, come here, and ask for help: a warning or short block might result and hopefully the individual would get the point and cut it out. Because of the ongoing MfD on the bio, I wasn't going to bring an ANI myself. And after the MfD was successful I would have given a grace period to see if the behavior stopped. That's the process I would follow in the future, should the editor in question return. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a 2-way IBAN because a one-way IBAN on CMDC doesn't appear to be an option on offer at the moment. I wasn't goint to bother to post to this thread but this and this today is the final straw. Sitush has been effectively gone for 4 or 5 days - there's nothing coming from him. Not only does she seem unable to drop it but this is shoe-horning her WP:BATTLE pointlessly. DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 26 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" [131] - 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]

Arguments presented on both sides, but consensus of the discussion is to oppose this proposal. Euryalus (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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)
  • [132][133][134]. 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:
  • [135] [Edit summary] stop being an idiot
  • [136] ...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?
  • [137] [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.[138] 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. [139] 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)
  • Oppose First - this s a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other. Collect (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose One-way interaction bans are inherently unfair: A can talk about B, but B can't talk about A. No. Also, I agree with Collect that IBANs should be for a limited duration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrotsβ†’ 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TP and Black Kite as well as Collect's comment about 1-way bans and limited duration. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per TParis. - theWOLFchild 08:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


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)

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

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 opposing the editor. Clear case.

  • Block per our policy: Wikipedia:Harassment. Warnings seem good enough for this situation. As complicated as it may 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. 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.[140]. 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: [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] 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"[147] 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.


(Non-admin close) This issue has moved on to ArbCom, so further discussion here becomes moot. Jusdafax 21:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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)
  • I'm confused. Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore has never existed. Anyway, you're light-skinned, so the police aren't going to shoot first (compare Ferguson to Bundy Ranch) even if they do take the extreme leaps of reasoning from "someone mentioned her name with the phrase gun owner" (which, incidentally, you just did in this comment) to "she needs to be raided". And yes, it should go without saying that creating an article on someone after being in an argument with them has at the very least the appearance of being a total dick move. --NE2 03:01, 28 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)
  • No concensus, but can these two editors at least agree (informally) to leave each other alone? As in not create articles about each other? Not to deliberately provoke? etc etc MaxBrowne (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Please...pretty please wish sugar on top. I could add crap on top (trust me...I can) but what would that accomplish here?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Close this whole thing?[edit]

Since Carolmooredc and her IAC cronies have apparently accomplished their mission, this entire ANI should probably be closed as moot. (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

First, this posting was removed since it makes a false accusation I'm in cahoots with sockpuppets on the India Against Corruption who allegedly were threatening Sitush and who were at least one of the parties he made the redacted "gun barrell" threat/joke against. Removing material that the average inclusionist would think was appropriate and writing crappy bios all in one topic area over time certain can get the sanest editors ticked off. Not that that excuses whatever alleged threats were made, of course.
Second, Sitush is not yet a party to the Arbcom though several people have asked him to be. I personally don't care if this ANI which I did not bring is closed as "no consensus but both sides should leave each other alone." (Though obviously making it sound like both individuals were equally responsible would be a bit much considering the diffs provided and comments editors have left here.)
When Sitush returns, if he starts on me again with nitpicking reverts against policy, posting petty complaints on my talk page after a talk page ban, and following me again just to cast aspersions against me in various forums, I'll be back here in a flash. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Ongoing issues with User:Truth_is_the_only_religion on Brahma Kumaris article[edit]

What's up, Doc? User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is a SPA and appears to only be here to edit disruptively, without any regard for consensus and without feeling any need to explain his/her edits on the talk page. Probably their contrib's show the story best. The issues raised when I posted here on 26th August are still very much a concern. However in addition, since that date this user has persistently made the same aggressive edit (deleting 15-35% of the article) at least 9 times [148][149][150][151][152][153][154] etc. against consensus, being reverted by 4 different editors so far. In a nutshell, they are trying to piecemeal re-instate a version of the article that existed prior to User:Januarythe18th being indefinitely blocked. There have been at least 3 occasions when the article has been 'bulk reverted' to the banned editors preferred version. Of course they were all undone. So now this "new editor" is going for the piecemeal approach. They refuse to work with other editors at all. I'm confident I can collaborate with User:McGeddon and others to address any content concerns through the usual process. This editor was warned last week on their talk page about this conduct, but no change at all. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWB #72 is hereby invoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Some WP:BOOMERANG here - User:Danh108 is also a bulk-reverting SPA, on the same article. I'm afraid I don't share Danh108's confidence in collaboration as they have declared a personal connection to Brahma Kumaris but reject COI policy as not applying to them. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Boomerangs come in all shapes and sizes[155]. Who is "them" anyway? Do you normally refer to editors by their religious beliefs[156]? (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That was intended as a singular they referring to Danh108. --McGeddon (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
OK fair dues. Although the bulk reverts appear to apply to the disruptive trolling account which appears to be sock of a previously blocked editor WP:BMB. Also Dan appears to have received your content related edits gracefully. Perhaps that would be a more productive avenue to explore (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what I am supposed to say. The simple answer is just that this is a Brahma Kumari follower, one of three editing the page, who have turned it into a badly written advert full of unsubstantiated conclusions.
I don't know every rule on the Wikipedia but I know a few and if you look at my edits more closely you will, for example, that I removed unreferenced material which had a flag almost a year old. I removed links to Blogspot website for the religion. I removed many self-published references written by the religion. I removed a whole lot of links to their retreat centres which could only have been advertising for them. And so on.
As I mentioned on the talk page, they have spent months editing the page without any discussion of the changes and, strangely, they never discuss or dispute between themselves.
I have asked them to confirm in writing that they are not acting as a team, and are not being coordinated somewhere off the Wikipedia. I believe they are and so their answer is evidence of their good faith. At present I believe that there is evidence of bad faith, e.g. constant admin reports about any one else editing the page and reversion of simple erroneous facts such as their founder's date of birth. I think they are doing this deliberately to provoke troubles which they then use to report people.
Therefore, can I demand a response from them here, are all three of you BK followers and you BK followers being coordinated by other individuals within the sect behind the scenes, or elsewhere? Honest answer please. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Why no answer yet from the 3 editors? Can one of them tell us if they are being coordinated off the Wikipedia? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You sound exactly like a previous editor who was blocked for repeated outing, talk page abuse and a battleground mentality. (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is a significant concern. I agree with User talk:'s comments above. I propose User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is either banned from this topic or re-blocked for the following reasons:

Proposal for User:Truth_is_the_only_religion to be site banned for the following reasons:[edit]

  • They have just joined Wikipedia, yet they are clearly not a new user. I struggle to accept User:McGeddon's suggestion that theymay have lost their password.
  • I suggest it is a brazen evasion of their earlier indefinite block: Just compare their comments above to the identical accusations being made in this users unblock requests. This users strategy is actually working really well - pump the talk page with unevidenced accusations, playing on the suspicions people have around these kind of pages (because so many times it has been true - Unfortunately everyone loves a conspiracy theory). Then edit as you like.
  • The Tag-team allegation [157] relates to myself User:GreyWinterOwl and User:Changeisconstant. User:Changeisconstant has only edited the page once since and has almost no contrib's - why would they be part of the conspiracy theory? I am asserting they were included because this editor knows them from past wikipedia experience and therefore includes them in the accusations they made earlier when operating the account User:Januarythe18th. Otherwise they would just as easily have included User: TMDrew who has reverted their bulk edits twice and is also a new account (January 2014). I am asserting this is just a strategy to deceive people, to character assassinate editors that don't conform to his/her views, persistenly focusing on their character/alleged religious affiliation, while merrily changing whatever they feel like on the article. So far the only content they keep raising to justify their edits is the founders DOB (and ironically I agree with this!, but can't find RS in support).
  • In a similar vein, User talk:Truth is the only religion is immediately referring to the other editors as 'they' - presumably in accordance with his/her conspiracy theory. He launches personal attacks based on religious belief/affiliation. Here he suggest all BKs should be banned from editing the page - what would happen if that was written on Jewish pages?
  • The talk page gets turned into WP:Battleground and editors are met with hostility and endless accusations and demands that "they" must answer his accusations before this editor will even speak to content issues "If the BKs would care to confirm or deny my first two questions, then I am happy to continue a discussion of why I think the changes are justified".
  • This conduct incites the same level of suspicion in other editors towards "BKs", yet it's all just empty accusations. No attempt is ever made to raise the concerns with Wiki admin - it is used purely as an editing strategy....and let's be honest, who reading this isn't very weary about User:Danh108 now....I even start to doubt myself.
  • Now that other editors are getting involved they are realising/echoing the concerns I've been flagging [158] [159]
  • User:McGeddon is a really good editor and quite pleasant to interact with. If anyone has time for the explanation about why some of his comments about me are incorrect they can read this. The only editor I reverted was User:Truth_is_the_only_religion who was doing mass edits with explanations like "change date of birth" or "written by follower of religion". Unfortunately User:McGeddon has a small blindspot in his/her interaction with me - I think mainly because of the influence of the rhetoric on the talk page.

Danh108 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion that the user might have lost their password was a good faith response to your initial post on my talk page back in August, accusing an editor I'd never heard of of being a sockpuppet of "my old friend" who I'd evidently reverted once, months previously. If you want to make and discuss sockpuppet accusations, WP:SPI is the place to do it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This guy, Truth_is_the_only_religion has continued to edit war against numerous users and has repeatedly reverted edits against consensus.--TMD (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There are significant 'blockworthy' issues that don't relate to the sockpuppetry being raised here.Danh108 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Truth_is_the_only_religion has questioned me as a BK follower and part of some tag team. The same approach was taken by User:Januarythe18th many times before being blocked. If it helps the case, let me make it very clear that I am not a BK follower and this is a baseless presumption. β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Changeisconstant (talk β€’ contribs) 17:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually did not read all of what Danh108 has written because what is going on here is far more simple. They have accused me of being someone else called June24th. All I can say is that I am not June24th but I don't know how to prove it. I welcome any investigation.

If you look at the actual edits I have, I think you will find they are according to the rules of the Wikpedia, for example, removing blog links, self-publish materials, unreferenced stuff, outdated requests for information and so on. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, no one has ever accused your current account of being June24th. User:Januarythe18th had been accused of being User:June24th about 8 months before your current account was created. Why did you suddenly bring that up? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::That there is a dead giveaway, so block it already! Not to mention should be blocked for BATTLEGROUND against a specific religion and not getting how wikipedia has worked since the beginning - as someone said we will never ban Jews from Jewish pages so why do ppl suggest it for your personal unfavorite (fill in the blank) (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Striking yet another sock edit by indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
GreyWinterOwl, that's more the proof that User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is likely to be a User:Januarythe18th sockpuppet account Changeisconstant (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Here it is; [160]. There might actually have been others but I cannot afford to spend the time looking. Danh108 seems to spend all this time complaining, reporting or trying to get admins to support him. There are too many. Ultimately it all adds up to the same thing. The BKs are trying to block any change to a page that they have written like an advert for their religion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I once walked into a crowded pub and as soon as I entered no one looked at me, but it went completely quiet - that silence spoke and I knew there had been conversations I wasn't privy to. I now know how it feels to be prejudged....Danh108 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The accusation that I was User:June24th is the only I can remember looking at. The BK editors have made so many, I have not followed them all. It seems to me to be all they do; revert the topics on their religion and make complaints to block other users.
I asked the BK editors a question which they have refused to answer. Are they being coordinated and supported off the Wikipedia by other members of their religion to control the topic on their religion?
The reason it is important to hold them to an answer is two fold.
  1. If they admit the answer is yes, and the answer is as I can show, then it proves they are acting as a team to control the topic page, and acting in bad faith.
  2. If they answer no, it proves they are acting in bad faith and being dishonest to the Wikipedian community and general public.
This is why they won't answer the question. Both answers prove bad faith.
If it is important, I will search for the User:June24th accusation but it will take me a little time that could be better spent. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You're demands seem to revolve around concerns of WP:COI, which is a guideline. Given your singular fascination with one article it is entirely possible you have some conflict of interest issues yourself. But all this is a smokescreen. Behind the smoke you are almost certainly evading a block based on your similar behaviour to User:Januarythe18th and suddenly mentioning User:June24th (a sockpuppet of Jan18th), harassing editors by making repeated accusations without evidence, personal attacks by discrediting editors based on their alleged religious affiliations and editing tendentiously. These are all violations of policies, not just guidelines. I'm amazed that you continue to do all this in full view of ANI. It's a wonder you haven't been blocked already. It's impossible to assess if your accusations are true without evidence or other editors, who don't engage in a pattern of POV pushing and disruption as you seem to be doing, experiencing some kind of disruptive resistance to editing that seems to be in some way coordinated between the editors you mention. (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Who are you? You did not log in. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what else is needed for blocking an editor who has himself disclosed clearly using a sock account! (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(The previous comment was not made by me although we are using the same ISP)
We are witnessing history being made here. An editor has actually managed to orchestrate an environment where he can abuse other editors and Wikipedia as much as he likes while swinging all scorn and suspicion towards those reporting him instead. It looks like he has become "too bad too block". No admin will comment, vote or take action. Truth is the only religion has actually become untouchable. In situations where a systems designed to safeguard citizens, or Wikipedians and the project itself, break down then it is often the victims that get blamed and punished instead of the perpetrator. I comment here anonymously because the situation here is just so weird.
I value Wikipedia highly as a community and a resource. I am deeply concerned that such overtly disruptive behaviour should be overlooked or ignored because I don't think that it is conducive to the project progressing or an environment editors will want to take part in. That is, after all, why behavioural polices exist in the first place. (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am a completely uninvolved party who stumbled on this thread. First of all, editors making accusations should log in. Second of all, this is not SPI, and if there is evidence that a SPI is warranted, as there seems to be, this is not the venue for it, SPI is, and that is the place for blocks for sockpuppeting. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish one of the involved editors would file an SPI. Maybe they need a little help. However it isn't just block evasion being reported here. There are multiple issues which is why, I guess, DanH is proposing a ban. A block or ban isn't just to please some other "involved" party. If it is warranted then it is for the good of the project and community as a whole. If an editor can act in such as way with impunity then what precedent does that set? What do other editors who are blocked or banned for less serious policy violations going to be thinking? What's this guy doing right to get away with so much?
I am not making any accusations beyond what I can see reported here and looking at the contribs. I will log in when I feel it is safe to do so. Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger. (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Brahma Kumari followers to be banned from editing page relating to their religion BKWSU[edit]

User:Danh108, User:GreyWinterOwl and User:Changeisconstant are Brahma Kumari followers and working as a team to control the Wikipedia topic page on their religion, and are being coordinated off the Wikipedia to do so.

The version of the topic they keep reverting to is highly problematic as discussed. They appear to be investing a disproportionate amount of time and effort courting administrators and putting in complaints.

If someone can tell me how or where to put in a more formal or complaint and explanation, please do so. Thanks.

Before I do so, I want to ask the Brahma Kumaris followers a simple leading question and see their answer. I would like other Wikipedians to hold them to an answer.

Have you and are you being coordinated off Wikipedia by other member or members of your religion? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Truth is the only religion, Serious accusations require serious evidence. I suggest you either back up your claims or remove them. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This proposal isn't likely to go anywhere. Yes, we banned the Church of Scientology, but that's easier to define and track (sort of), and the Church of Scientology is noted for their incompatible worldview (to put it politely). With or without bans, followers of different religions are going to otherwise edit articles relating to their religions. Except in some fringe cases (namely, and to my knowledge, only the Church of Scientology) it is better that they do so openly so that biases can be understood for what they are (as well as allowing good-faith editors to edit topics they are interested in and to balance out those who have a bias against any given group).
Do I have the impression that Brahma Kumari followers are causing trouble in the article? Yes (though I also get the impression that former members or persons otherwise with an agenda against the religion are trying to hard to balance them out). Do I think that topic banning Brahma Kumari followers is going to accomplish anything? Not really. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Going by the record of banned sock puppet accounts like User:Januarythe18th, they had similar battleground approach and accusations to distract Admins looking at banning them. I am not a BKWSU follower as stated above already however followers are always going to be editing the articles pertaining to their religions and there is no way Wikipedia would ban all followers of religions! Changeisconstant (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This proposal can't be voted on because it is illegal in most countries to bar participation based on religion. The tit-for-tat nature of the proposal looks to me like gaming. (talk) β€” Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can substantiate my allegation but I am asking the 3 BK editors to come clean first and answer my question to them regarding whether they are being coordinated off the Wikipedia?
Can someone ensure that they answer, or accept their unwillingness to answer as an admission of guilt?
The reason I am not rushing to provide the evidence I have is to further underline the bad faith and waste of others time, energy and efforts via their operating as a team, and making quite so many complaints and accusations to distract from what is going on as they have done.
I suggest that the Brahma Kumari extreme worldview and modus operandi is clearly comparable. Yes, I think they should be banned as per Scientology. The intentions of any group who believe dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago and that they are going to inspire a nuclear holocaust which will kill off 7 billion impure members of humanity so that they can inherit a heaven on earth afterwards has to be suspect. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Your problem is not with some group of editors. Your problem is with the wp policies you have such little regard for. Your contribs today speak for themselves. (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't answer to most nation's laws. This is a private site, and we are allowed to ban or block editors as we see fit. See WP:FREESPEECH. This proposal is worrisome, however.
If BK followers were causing a tenth as much trouble as the Church of Scientology did, it would have been noticed not only by other users, but by the news media. The Church of Scientology (not necessarily its followers, but the organization that sells the followers their beliefs) was noted for decades of undeniable illegal actions, which they tried to censor (among other things), along with a worldview that is completely at odds with common understandings of research, biology, and even language itself. If there are BK followers in this thread, they appear to be speaking the same English as everyone else, instead of a nearly-distinct language consisting of homonymic jargon. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have to answer to US laws. For example, the community can't just vote to allow child pornography on Wikipedia. Banning a whole religious group from editing as a policy would be seen as religious discrimination. Referring again to the Scientology arbcom case example, it was a mechanical IP range block against offices being used to edit disruptively, not against Scientologist editors in general. (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The Foundation is not bound by the First Amendment, as it is not the US Congress. Freedom of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment only prevents the United States government from endorsing or prohibiting the worship of a given religion, and has no bearing on private entities such as the Wikimedia Foundation. Your comparison to child pornography is a straw man, since there is not (to my knowledge) any Constitutional amendment specifically banning it as there is with freedom of religion. Apples to oranges. β€”Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to have to throw my hands up here and say I'm not in the US nor a lawyer before I did myself six feet under! I just read a "Civil Rights" webpage [161] and assumed that where it said that there were, "Laws protecting people from private (non-government) discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)", that would include public participation in projects or services provided to the public. So far I've only been able to find laws applying to employment so I may have been mistaken. The "straw man" was in answer to the statement made by Ian.thomson that, "Wikipedia doesn't answer to most nation's laws". The point being that Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have answer to laws where they are applicable to an organisation running a website in CA/US. Even if there aren't very many of them. I've also just read WP:FREESPEECH and it appears to be slapping me on the face with a wet trout. How embarrassing.
So I guess that leaves the question as to whether Wikimedia Foundation would accept a community decision to ban editors based solely on their religious beliefs due to the possible bad publicity and protests that might entail. (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Since there is no prospect of the community enacting any such ban, we'll never know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to end on that note. (talk) 07:43, 29 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”˜ 85.255, Did you read anything else I said? While Wikipedia could ban editors based on their religious affiliation, there is no reason to believe that'd happen unless a particular group proved to be incapable of contributing positively (such as the Church of Scientology, but not Freezone Scientologists). And does Wikipedia answer to the laws of any other nation? No. Is America "most nations?" No. Don't assume that America is the world. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. You are right. I was wrong. (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
So how do I progress this, and prove that the Brahma Kumaris are both centrally coordinating and supporting adherents to protect their religion's topic pages; and raise the issue of whether they are comparable to the Scientologists?
It strikes me all the BKs/BK supporters do is revert to their chosen version and put in complaints to block or hinder others.
That is all this is about.
I have asked the three editors to confirm or deny whether this is going on. Despite all the incrimination and waffle they have all avoided answering the question. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You do not progress this. For the community to accept that BKs are comparable to the Church of Scientology in term of harm, multiple uninvolved editors would have to bring up that the organization of BK (not merely lay followers acting on their own) is being actively directed by the leaders to edit the article according to a set agenda. BK would also have to have an explicit doctrine demonstrating that they would not be willing to cooperate with Wikipedia (like Scientology's "fair game" doctrine) and a history of crimes against (such as the Church of Scientology breaking into US gov't offices) that would have lead a number of otherwise free countries to blocking the religion (such as Germany outlawing the Church of Scientology).
Because of your prior history in opposing them specifically, including making unevidenced claims that editors you disagree with must be BKs, you would actually detract from the credibility of such investigations. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are BKs trying to get people blocked, but you're really coming across as their inverse, not their opposite. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If Ian.thomson or someone else wanted to let me know why my post was such a flop that would be great - without feedback I can't improve for the future. I get that the SPI aspects of my concern have been raised in the wrong place, but think there is more to it than just this. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and false accusations[edit]

Situation resolved. Closed.  Philg88 β™¦talk 06:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Lithistman is on a bit of a vendetta, it seems. Despite pleasant collaboration elsewhere, they see fit to place this personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous: "aving recently started editing the main Landmark article, I'd be willing to bet that many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". They charge that "many of the editors" object to inclusion of material because it is critical of the Landmark movement: in other words, those editors (I assume that's Randykitty, Tgeairn, Hoary, and me) have POVs slanted toward Landmark and cannot edit neutrally.

That's a bad enough personal attack already, and then follows some more crap at John Barrowman. In a nutshell: John takes issue with the material (really a minor matter in its own right), Spartaz protects, protection runs out, and Lithistman reinstates the material. I see this, I revert, I re-protect, and explain at length on the talk page what, in my opinion, the proper way forward is. Lithistman fills up a talk page with claims of admin abuse. In the meantime, Spartaz clarifies what they hadn't said out loud: that they considered the issue resolved, though there is no formal resolution on the talk page, which kind of leaves me with my pants down--but any admin can understand that invoking the BLP is a valid argument for protection and revert.

Well, you can check the history of the talk page: Lithistman has more abuse and false accusations to offer (such material discussing user conduct is inappropriate on an article talk page), and refuses to go to ANI--no doubt because they realize they don't have a leg to stand on. but I've had it with the rather sickening personal attacks and the disruption. I'm leaving that talk page alone, though they removed my last comment--perhaps someone can restore that, I don't care. And let me add that I did what I did in that article not because I agree with John (I have mixed feelings, as I explained), but because the BLP is to be protected above everything else. But editors who act like this make this very difficult, and I'm tired of it. So here it is: personal attacks of POV editing, disruption of a talk page, false accusations of abuse, and a total disrespect for the BLP. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • And this little section, they closed as "harassing comments". If I ask them not to make personal attacks, and they call that harassment, what should I call accusations of POV editing, admin abuse, etc? Drmies (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I won't be offering anything by way of reply here. I stand by every edit I've made on this project, including statements I've made about my experience editing the Landmark article. My work on the project is my reply, so check my contributions for my defense. LHMask me a question 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Your article work isn't explaining your behaviour, however. We have too many editors who think they can behave poorly if they do good edits elsewhere - you don't want to become one of those the panda ₯’ 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm unimpressed with Lithistman's grasp of the material he is discussing, and I am deeply unimpressed with an editor who apparently has to personalise everything rather than discuss improving articles. I don't appreciate the section on his talk page about me and I would like it removed. Lithistman needs to up his game or he is in for some nasty surprises, especially if he is going to edit in difficult areas like BLP. --John (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you see the list of editors they pinged on that talk page to discuss our ongoing admin abuse? How is that not a violation of WP:TPNO? Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I did. Did you see this and this? Coupled with this, where he gets the name of the source he is edit-warring wrong, I think we have an unfortunate combination of impulsivity and carelessness. I would like to see it stopped but administratively I've done my bit and that can be someone else's call now. --John (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For people interested in what actually is going on, see the Barrowman talkpage. As for the pinging, I pinged the editors that had established the consensus that you were edit-warring against. Before an administrator takes any action supporting this silliness, I'd encourage you to dig deeper. Much deeper. LHMask me a question 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • There is nothing deeper to dig here. No matter whether John has a point or not, they can invoke the BLP and that trumps everything. It's not a recipe to stall all article progress, and if Spartaz had closed that discussion with a consensus (one which John might or might not have agreed with) this might have gone differently. As it is, I am accused of admin abuse (it's right there on the talk page) when I did exactly what the BLP tells me to do as an admin: revert, protect, in the absence of a clear-cut consensus. And along comes Lithistman (still edit-warring in that article) pinging half a dozen people and accusing me of admin abuse--and they refuse to bring it to ANI or to respond here, since, of course, the charge can't stand daylight. And that's on top of the personal accusation of POV editing in that gourous AfD. This, I propose, is the kind of thing that sickens the atmosphere around here. Wanna make this go away? Apologize, for your actions and your words. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And now Lithistman is offering the same lies at an ArbCom case, here. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that's entirely incorrect. There has been a clear consensus for the inclusion of the material (and the reliability of the source) as the result of multiple discussions since February 2014, and the current talk page shows this to be true. John's misinterpretation of BLPSOURCES to push his personal POV is legendary, and the community has consistently told him he's wrong and he needs to stop. For background, see the People magazine debacle where John attempted the same bad behavior. The community has neither blacklisted the Daily Mail not has it disallowed the use of nonvontroversial interviews, and in fact, it has supported the use of this source for this purpose. Until just last week, John accepted this consensus but has now returned to the same disruptive editing as before. Unfortunately, several admins, including Spartaz and Drmies have stepped in to support John's involvement, which has led both to my recent block (which was overturned) and now the current block of Lithistman. I'm afraid that the admin community has shown a preference for rallying around their own during a dispute, and in the process, targets regular editors for sanctions using trumped up claims and accusations. As a result of this continuing disruption by admins, we will need to take this to arbcom, as admins cannot prosecute their own nor have they shown the slightest interest in regulating their own community. I personally witnessed this several weeks ago when Drmies was edit warring and John stepped in to close the edit warring report against him, even though John had acted involved in the initial incident report and called for sanctions against the reporter. Both John and Drmies have worked together against Lithistman here, and he is currently blocked because of their tag team behavior. Admins must be held to the same standard of decorum as regular editors. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a long-ass paragraph, Viriditas, full of hot air. Are you really saying that Spartaz and I are responsible for your block? Weren't you blocked last week? I first edited the article and its talk page today, so I'm curious how my actions today caused you to get blocked last week. Some facts, please, or explain how I am secretly able to warp time. Or are you just here to smear some accusations around and get some revenge after you were shown up elsewhere for lack of knowledge and disruptive editing? I know my ass from my elbow, Viriditas. I find this helpful. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now Lithistman got hisself blocked, and leaves with yet another accusation on their talk page: their retirement was my goal. They called this ANI frivolous, and I find nothing frivolous or amusing about being accused of admin abuse and POV editing, with unsubstantiated charges smeared all over the article talk page, my talk page, their talk page, and now the ArbCom request case. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I read at the start of this: Lithistman is on a bit of a vendetta, it seems. Despite pleasant collaboration elsewhere, they see fit to place this personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous: "aving recently started editing the main Landmark article, I'd be willing to bet that many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". They charge that "many of the editors" object to inclusion of material because it is critical of the Landmark movement: in other words, those editors (I assume that's Randykitty, Tgeairn, Hoary, and me) have POVs slanted toward Landmark and cannot edit neutrally. Minor point: I don't remember having ever edited Landmark Worldwide; if I've ever done so, it would I think have been a long time ago. I have edited Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. In the recently concluded AfD of the latter, I recommended adding material about the subject matter to the article Landmark Worldwide. ΒΆ While not defending accusations of bias and also trying not to make them myself, I rather routinely find them directed at me: I normally just yawn and carry on with what I'm doing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, it's hard to yawn sometimes. Lithistman loudly proclaims that my forum shopping was aimed at making them quite--an act of clairvoyance, besides a lie, since I "shopped" at only one forum, this one, and only because they refused to retract their allegations and make their case in the proper place. This user has been engaged in this sort of hitting below the belt for years, under various accounts--editors like Gwen Gale may remember this and so, Hoary, may you. So if you tell me to just yawn--well, I suppose. And I'll yawn at the diatribe below as well: I like the gift as I like the giver. "Potentially facing sanctions"--pff. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support BOOMERANG. Drmies hasn't cited a single alleged "personal attack" made by Lithistman here or anywhere else for that matter. I encourage everyone to look at the links and diffs and try to substantiate what Drmies is saying, because it's completely impossible. What we have here are several admins working together to target editors who disagree with them, and this is the second instance of Drmies edit warring against another editor and getting them blocked in only the last month. In other words, Drmies was involved in another edit war and decided to file false charges against the other editor in a content dispute. Contrary to what Drmies claims, there isn't a single piece of evidence supporting his claims that Lithistman is on a vendetta anywhere, that Lithistman has made personal attacks, or that Lithistman has disrupted Wikipedia. This is yet another example of Drmies going after people who disagree with them. Just as admin John called for my sanctions when I recently filed an ANI against Drmies for edit warring and adding biased content, and just as John acted involved to close the edit warring report against Drmies to prevent any sanctions from taking place, so too has Drmies attempted to help admin John by reverting and protecting John Barrowman against consensus to admin John's preferred version, and the kicker is that Drmies has admitted doing this. Meanwhile, to distract everyone from the purely disruptive behavior of these two admins, Drmies has filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint to keep our eyes off the ball. Well, it's not going to happen. The facts are clear. Admin John acted involved and blocked me for reverting his edits against consensus. Lithistman showed up to revert to the consensus version and Drmies reverted him and protected the article against consensus. Meanwhile, this ridiculous, baseless report was filed and Lithistman was blocked for daring to challenge two admins who worked together to undermine the consensus generated by the community. There's not a single thing about this report from Drmies that has a basis in fact or evidence and the community should take a stand against two admins working together to violate the rules, twist the policies, and block editors who challenge their POV. Let's face the facts: Drmies is potentially facing sanctions in at least two topic areas right now, one of which is already on the arbcom request page, with very serious allegations being made against Drmies.[162] I think this ANI is another attempt by Drmies to distract the community from his continuing bad behavior, but I just don't think it is going to work anymore. At some point, WP:ROPE comes into play, and there's nothing anyone can do. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack here? All Lithistman has said, and possibly quite correctly, is that the editors on Landmark article would object to any critical material being added from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. If Drmies feels that this applies to him personally, then perhaps he doth protest too much. Looking at the other edits/flaggings/deletion nominations over the past week or so, it would be an easy thing to mistake conscientious editing by a long-time wikipedia editor and one with an agenda. Zambelo; talk 12:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Can a truely uninvolved admin please step in and end this bickering or figure out what the heck is going on and warn all parties to ratch it down a notch? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Drmies, I assume you're going to provide diffs of those personal attacks, yes? I see one linked comment, and it's not a personal attack at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For a timeline of what happened yesterday, see this page, that I compiled after Drmies managed to briefly get me blocked yesterday. LHMask me a question 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That timeline should be marked "original research"--there's more mindreading, synthesis, and sophistry there than I've seen in a long time. To cite just one, I didn't question your competence over this Mail/Mirror thing, which is trivial--I question it because of your apparent lack of knowledge of what BLP means, and what edit warring means. And then there was this, where you seemed to think that a primary source becomes secondary if you cite it twice. And this, where you reinstated what was previously pointed out as a copyvio, not just "simply linking to a reprint". Drmies (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi UltraExactZZ. Sure. But let me note one thing first: LHM continually claims "edit warring against consensus" (in a few diffs below) as if that is an exemption for him to edit war (they reverted three times). That consensus was hardly iron-clad. John claims BLP--and like it or not, BLP trumps consensus. If editors disagree, they should seek recourse one way or another--but not this way.
    • LHM accusing other editors of POV editing in the Landmark matter: "many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". (Either that, or LHM is a mind reader.)
    • LHM backtracking from that comment with a falsehood ("my comment was clearly a general one") and a non-apology apology: "I'm sorry you felt attacked". Note how LHM expresses that taking civility complaints to ANI is "silly"--as if discussing them in AfDs and article talk pages is the way to go (it is not, as everybody knows).
    • Here is LHM calling John lazy because John does not see a consensus on including the material--note that Spartaz later says on the talk page that "there appears to be consensus", a statement so modified that it is reasonable to accept that John read that discussion (and its lack of formalized consensus/outcome differently.
    • John accused of "misusing his status as an administrator to try and enforce his mistaken interpretation of BLP". Calling John's BLP view is mistaken is one thing, saying he abuses his status as an admin is quite another, and it is not a matter for the article talk page.
    • Now LHM is accusing me (I suppose--"another admin") of "edit-warring against consensus, abusing his tools to protect a non-consensus version". Well, the BLP takes away the edit-warring concern, and since when is one single revert an edit war? how many times has LHM reverted that same edit? Oops: once, twice, three times. (Note their last edit summary: he claims I'm making this personal--showing a distinct lack of AGF as well as mindreading.) In addition, the consensus was hardly as clear as could be (already noted), and protecting a BLP in case of an edit dispute is an admin's job.
    • More mindreading, specious claims of edit warring (this is after LHM had reverted three times, against my single one) and abuse of tools.
    • And here is John being accused of edit warring, and of recruiting me. Well, is this a "recruitment"?
    • Same claim of recruitment and more mindreading. I didn't want LHM blocked.
    • Anyone interested in LHM's "help I'm being oppressed" message? Here's his talk page notice, accusing me of "forum shopping" (which requires more than one forum, I suppose, and I sought only one, the proper one, ANI, which LHM studiously avoids), my mission is to get him blocked (more mindreading), and my RFPP request was "deceptive" (how "deceptive" is this?).
  • I'm sure LHM thinks this is all very funny, and Viriditas jumped right on top, didn't he. ANI discussions are silly. Rants and false accusations in bold print on their talk page are OK (again). Unproven accusations of admin abuse made in all the wrong places are OK. I'm banned from their talk page (boohoo!), so they can just say anything they like? Ultraexactzz, is this what you were looking for? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for, thank you. Honestly, though, looking at those diffs... most of those statements are not personal attacks, and the ones that come closest are borderline incivil at best. Telling an admin that they are mistaken isn't a personal attack, much as we might wish it were so on occasion. Acknowledging that a group of editors disagrees with the inclusion of a source isn't a personal attack (nor is it an accusation of POV). Calling an editor lazy is pretty weaksauce for a personal attack - but he could have been more civil about it. And yeah, he was on one side of an edit war, and has been blocked and unblocked as a result. Who was on the other side? With whom did he edit war? Saying as much isn't a personal attack. And I believe the forum shopping accusation comes from your report at RFPP, where you neglected to link to ongoing discussions at the article's talk page or at BLP/N (thus, the accusation of deception). In short, I think all three of you (John, LHM, and you) could have handled this better - LHM felt goaded by John's interpretation of BLP, you backed him up (and protected the page yourself, at one point), and LHM edit warred (and was properly blocked for it). I do not believe there is cause for anything other than trouts all around in this case. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • "You're abusing your tools" is hardly the same as saying "you're mistaken", UltraExactZZ. And refusing to make the claim in the proper place, and reverting their removal from the improper place, and repeating them again and again in a "forum" from which they have banned me (and John), that's--well, we're on Wikipedia, and you have a trout ready for me, so I won't tell you what it is, but it can be easily modified by "cowardly". Do you, as an admin, ever have to deal with shit like this? And what do you think the net effect of all this is? Some editor screams "I'm being oppressed by an abusive admin" and next thing you there's two more admins who will not be able to act when necessary since they got an entire lynchmob at the ready.

        So, UltraExactZZ and everyone else: did I abuse my magic admin tool yes or no? It's a question this editor refused to ask where it really matters, but it's here now, and dodging it simply means enabling this passive-aggressive wankery. Can editors say this without proof but with impunity? Drmies (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

        • Quite honestly, if being accused of abusing your tools is as infuriating to you as it seems to be, then I don't know that being an admin is the right job for you. That sort of low-level grumbling is part and parcel with being an admin, especially here, and ESPECIALLY for admins who are willing to make tough calls. I'm not saying you were wrong to act on that article, I'm saying that I get why your involvement didn't do anything to calm LHM down or back him off of his position. From his perspective, rightly or wrongly, the issue of that source was a settled one. Then an admin comes in and disagrees, and then another admin comes in, guns blazing, backing up the "clearly mistaken" first admin? Yeah, I'd be pissed too. Your involvement might have been technically correct, but it did absolutely nothing to defuse the situation. When asked, LHM almost immediately agreed to wait for the discussion at BLP/N to end before adding the source again. Had John not been the one to revert initially, or had the discussion at the talk page not been so contentious, I'm betting someone (a long-term, well respected admin such as yourself perhaps) could have asked him to back off and gotten a positive response. Instead, we're at ANI. I think this could have been handled better by all parties. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
          • UltraExactZZ, then just go ahead and close this thread, will you? "Respected" doesn't mean anything to this editor and his little gang of admin abusees, and that that awful shit, those lies, are there on the top of his talk page--what about that? Oh, yeah, let's give users plenty of leeway to slander people on top of their talk page, that's the way to handle civility problems. I wonder if Bbb's comment, below, gives you cause for concern. We're not dealing with one thing against one person, and if the next one of this posse tries to get someone in trouble, I wonder who will help. And do you know what the tactic is? Irritate and accuse, so that they can accuse the admin from being involved when action needs to be taken. So for this thread alone, they can claim to have taken out half a dozen admins. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
            • It's your thread, boss. I have no objection to a close, and I don't think there's any serious argument for administrative action here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I repeat I am not happy with having a section dedicated to me on User:Lithistman's user talk page which has no content and at the same time Lithistman has "banned" me from his talk page. Drmies has removed it (once?) and I have removed it (twice). If he continues to replace it I request a one week block. --John (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • John, I'd leave that nonsense alone, before you get blocked for removing a personal attack (gasp!). Also, no, I never removed anything from that talk page. It should be removed, and maybe a passing admin will take care of it. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact of the matter is that the biggest, by far, and most insidious problem wikipedia faces is that of "civil" POV pushing, hiding behind cries of "admin abuse", "thingism", "catism", "dogism" or whatever the "...ism" of the day is. Until we address that dysfunctional aspect of the site, these stupidly long, pointless threads will continue, because, hell, they're admirable, aren't they? Judge folks by what they say and do, not by which minority or majority group you think they belong to. The ones crying "but... equality..." are generally the ones who don't want, or understand that at all. Disbelievers may examine this page for "gamergateism" etc, to see this invasion, and ponder on what we have become. Begoon talk 17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The lack of good faith displayed at the AfD is glaring for everyone to see, so I'm not going to provide any diffs because I have better things to do, everything is in the AfD. Apparently, Lithistman and Zambelo are unable to imagine that somebody who disagrees with them, may do so for valid reasons. Instead, they must be POV pushers. Zambelo also seems to think that it is exceptional that an editor participates in an AfD, looks at the article under discussion, subsequently goes to articles that it wikilinks to, and then tags those for perceived problems. Instead, they seem to think that such completely normal behavior is a "pattern" and proof of POV. This nonsense is repeated in the ArbCom request. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
What you say, Randykitty, is perfectly correct. Yet this kind of "you disagreed with me in one place, so must never do so again, anywhere, you "involved" devil, you, or I'll take you to AN/ARBCOM/I" is perpetuated and encouraged. This is the kind of thing we need to deal with, urgently. Begoon talk 19:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't that you disagree with me. The issue, for me at least, is that you are not contributing or even attempting to contribute, to any of the articles you are nominating for deletion. Furthermore you aren't even engaging other editors involved in the editing of those articles on the talk page, forcing them (mostly me) to make hasty additions in a last-ditch effort to save multiple articles. This shows seriously underhanded tactics, and a profound lack of respect for other editors who have worked on the articles you have gutted and then deleted. Zambelo; talk 04:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I got round to following up a ping to have a look at John Barrowman this morning and have given my thoughts over there. A similar incident blew up in February about exactly the same material. At the time, I said I would look at this when I had the time by finding the same claims in higher quality sources. I never got round to it, but I notice the Daily Mail cites have been replaced or augmented by ones in The Guardian. So how on earth we managed to get from that to multiple talk page threads, a lengthy discussion on the BLP noticeboard, and now to being told that Drmies has a magic 8 ball (that can randomly block anyone with a wave of the magic finger when he's in the mood) is a bit of a mystery. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That's incorrect. The Daily Mail sources have not been replaced, they've been upheld by consensus and are cited multiple times as reference #2. So your conclusion is in error. I suggest you are looking at a cache version when several admins, including John, Spartaz, and Drmies, were misusing their tools to revert and edit war against consensus, issue user blocks as involved admins, and protect the article to prevent community consensus. Further, this is not an isolated incident; this is part of a pattern of admin behavior that arbcom needs to review. @Lithistman: and myself are collecting evidence to present this problem to the wider community and @The Devil's Advocate: has offered more recent evidence of problematic editing and blocks by Drmies, so the problem is getting worse by the day, not better. In all of these incidents (and the one I brought here earlier in the month), Drmies' response is to blame others and shift the burden. This cannot be allowed to continue. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following this discussion, and it's a bit painful to read. Of course, Viriditas's baseless vitriol doesn't help. I was first introduced to LHM on Drmies's talk page when he attacked Drmies regarding an edit warring issue at the Landmark article (I wasn't familiar with the article). That rant is archived here. After a whole bunch of hoopla about the issue, Viriditas, LHM's partner in garbage, changed the edit warring policy to essentially say admins who edit-war should be sanctioned just like everyone else. There was no discussion before this change, and I was somewhat flabbergasted and reverted him. He then took it to my Talk page and onward to the edit war policy talk page. LHM quickly jumped in supporting Viriditas and complaining about admins generally (e.g., "it's engrained in the culture of this project that (again, in practice) admins are treated much differently than regular editors with regards to sanctions and blocks"). That discussion is archived here. I stayed out of that discussion despite the fact that I was the one who reverted because I didn't want to fan the flames. Unfortunately, LHM made two edits to the policy, one canceling the other. His intention was to make a point, but instead of doing so in the discussion, he did so in the policy itself. I thought that was WP:POINTy at best, and I said so. His response: "And, quite frankly, I don't care what you think of what basically amounted to a null edit to the policy page. That's your issue, not mine." Things went downhill from there, and I finally bowed out because his attitude was so obnoxious, even when some of his points were valid. BTW, that's one of LHM's core problems. Even when you agree with something he says, it's almost always said in a way that makes you cringe (snarky, coatracky, passive-aggressive). Viriditas's change stayed out of the policy.
My next experience with LHM was when I agreed with him on something. He wanted Sitush unblocked. Again, the problem was in the way he approached those who thought the block should be upheld. LHM's comments attacked just about anyone who disagreed with him. For example, many editors who thought Sitush should not have been blocked in the first instance, still understood why he was blocked and why his comments were deleted; yet LHM wasn't as temperate, accusing the blocking admin of deleting the comments to hide the proof ([163]). But things got worse off of Sitush's talk page after Floq unblocked Sitush, LHM practically fawned on him, while at the same time attacking anyone on the "other side". For example, this attack on Kevin: "So, basically he didn't break a rule at all, and you're just pissed off that you can't just undo Floque's unblock without being desysop'd? Good to know." ([164]). And veiled attacks on Sitush's talk page: "I'd much rather you come back sooner than later because the fact of the matter is, you need to be here while some certain others don't." ([165]). He continued attacking others when the block became the subject of discussion at ANI. "Overturn entirely per DougWeller, as well as Chillum's (per usual) complete misunderstanding of the situation." ([166]) Chillum, btw, was a strong supporter of the block. And he was also against the change to the edit warring policy. So, he had become one of LHM's least favorite admins. Naturally, LHM also attacked Mike V: "Not too surprised to see the blocking administrator refuse to consider the context of the comments, the history of the editor, or anything other than "the letter of the law", in defending the indef block." ([167]) and "As Mike V seems utterly incapable of grasping nuance or subtlety, you probably should have simply told him he was acting like a pedantic fusspot." ([168]) There's more in the same vein, but it's tedious grabbing every one of them.
In my view, the picture of LHM's behavior is not a pretty one. I think his destructive attitude clearly warrants sanctions, but it's not clear to me what those sanctions should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The only real evidence of a "destructive attitude" on this page appears in the above comment by Bbb2. Please make a special note of Bbb23's reliance on baseless personal attacks and accusations composed of empty, emotive verbiage devoid of substance, using words like "painful, baseless vitriol, hoopla, fawned, attacking, flabbergasted" and other manipulative attempts at controlling perception. In addition to this failed attempt at public relations, Bbb23's remembrance of things past is entirely faulty (no doubt due to his mouldy madeleines) as his diffs do not say what he claims. For example, Bbb23 claims LHM attacked Drmies, but there is no such attack in the diff provided. The same is true for the rest of Bbb23's diffsβ€”full of abrasive rhetoric, but lacking actual substance. I encourage everyone to look at Bbb23's diffs and decide for themselves. Finally, Bbb23's claim that modifying EW to note that "admins who edit-war should be sanctioned just like everyone else" is a change in our policy is ridiculous. WP:EW applies to all editors, with advanced permissions or not, and making this explicit in the policy had full support from non-admins on the talk page. However, admins like Bbb23, attracted like moths to a flame, took to the policy talk page and attempted to divert and distract the discussion by changing the subject and attacking the editors instead of the problem. Bbb23 successfully thwarted the will of the community in this endeavor, and with the help of his fellow admins, the discussion denigrated into false allegations of canvassing, personal attacks on the motives of editors who made and supported the change, and anything other than the discussion itself. This is the kind of "administration" of Wikipedia Bbb23 supports. I think both Drmies and Bbb23 are deserving of serious sanctions for wasting the time of the community with false accusations against Lithistman. What was Lithistman's "crime" that so enraged these administrators? His "crime" was to question their bad behavior, their edit warring, and their misuse of their authority. Drmies was edit warring on the Landmark page, and reverted Lithistman many times. Why wasn't Drmies blocked for edit warring in this instance, after all, this was the second major edit war Drmies had been involved in just a week after being reported for edit warring on 3RR/N. Because admins like Bbb23 are so very confused about how the edit warring policy applies to admins, I made this explicit in the policy.[169] Bbb23 reverted this, because he truly believes that administrators are exempt from the edit warring policy.[170] And that is exactly why Drmies started this thread. Lithistman's great "crime" (and what Bbb23 has deemed a "personal attack") was to remind Drmies that his administrator rights do not give him the privilege of edit warring against policy. To quote the great and wise Lithistman, "The fact that you've been entrusted with a mop and bucked most certainly does not entitle you to special privilege when editing." I have much more faith in the wisdom of Lithistman than I do in the abuse of our policies exemplified by Drmies actions and in Bbb23's defense of impunity. I think that any honest person who takes the time to read this thread will see where the problem resides. And it resides in the actions and words of Drmies and Bbb23 and all the other administrators who believe the policies don't apply to them. It's time to remind them who runs this community. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been aware that John and Viriditas have banged heads before. Having looked at the discussions, John has generally refrained from directly referring to editors and conduct, and focused on policy without singling any specific person out. However, some time back I suggested that if he ever blocked Viriditas, it would cause a drama-fest disproportionate to the dispute in question, and I appear to have been proven right on that count. Still, we can't change the past, what's done is done. All I would say is for people to AGF, suggest that sometimes full protection can be a viable alternative to a block (especially when there's grounds to believe it will result in retaliation), and to make grievances short, to the point and focus directly on article content wherever possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies...I have no idea what is going on...but if you protected the page again to keep out the tabloid source as Spartaz did that was a truly acceptable source for the content and context...a date of birth and an non contentious quote.....that was truly ridiculous. If you have some proof or demonstration that John Barrowman did not make those comments, please add them here or for god's sake people...stop [civility redaction] around with that BLP. I am beginning to think this has much more to do with the subject himself and people need to give the [civility redaction] up. Seriously. There is no breach of policy for using a tabloid source where the subject has given an interview. If I am wrong...put up or [civility redaction] now. (Also...very sorry for being so harsh to someone I truly like here but what the [civility redaction] is going on? Seriously?)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You're wrong. Read WP:BLPSOURCES. There is no exemption for using poor sources where an interview is alleged. Why would there be? --John (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

With no claim to experience or wisdom, but simply a fresh pair of eyes. Several of the diffs which Drmies gives to my eyes do not qualify as personal attacks. Some of them certainly do: but LHM seems to have gotten riled up after (a) getting involved a content dispute with an editor who also happened to be an admin (b) a page protection to the WP:WRONGVERSION by an uninvolved admin and (c) getting blocked by a third uninvolved admin. It was simply a coincidence (no sarcasm intended), but with a bit of empathy you can see his paranoia that admins are acting in concert against him. All sides have suffered enough, perhaps it is time to put it behind yourselves? The content in the article has been corrected, so the content dispute seems to be over. Kingsindian β™β™š 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Seriously. If the content dispute is over...lets just stop now. I came back from my vacation to see a bing to that [civility redaction] again and I am beginning to think there is something that began this that well meaning admin do not understand. But if I claim it here...surely I will be piled on with enough [civility redaction] to clog a toilet. Lets move on before we start even more stupidity and hate. Enough. There are limits to this kind of crap. Really!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Then, instead of rattling of all the bad words you know, close the thread. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated demands to self-revert[edit]

Closed by popular demand.
 β€” Berean Hunter (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I've been recently under repeated demands to self-revert and allow the insertion of inaccurate information by Kingsindian who has a bit of a (self professed) history for not really listening to proper source-based arguments on the talk page (sample: "I simply ignore"[171]). I don't really know what to make of this as I stated my acceptance of one of the suggested versions -- but this user insists I self-revert to his version (which is, in my humble opinion, a misrepresentation of the sources: bomb squad officials != Ministry of Interior). To boot, there's been battle behavior and article ownership issues from said user since our early encounters. I'm not even going into the issue of repeated source misrepresentation -- which is also a real concern. To the point of self-revert demands, I'd appreciate some administrative help. Perhaps a warning that said user stop using threats as means to get his bold versions on the page. I think the wiki-terminology is 'bold, revert, discuss'. He appears to wish to replace the 'discuss' part with 'I don't want to discuss anymore, you must self-revert!'.[172],[173],[174] (apologies if these are not ordered by time stamp). Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing much to say, except I did not demand self-reversion. I said that if he does not self-revert, I will go to WP:AE. It is a common practice for people in this area to ask people to self-revert, instead of using a big-hammer WP:AE approach. I have no desire to report him per se, but I will, if he continues. If he feels that his actions were fully justified, he can make his case there. Kingsindian (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a nice courteous move if someone mistakenly reverted over the allotted number of reverts. I hope others will agree it should not be common for editors to demand others 'self-revert <or else>' to get newly inserted content de-rever-ed. I'd be quite disappointed if others did not reject threat-making in this context. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, Israel/Palestine articles are all under a 1 revert WP:AE restriction, so if you made more than a single revert, it might be a valid suggestion. the panda ɛ˒ˑ” 17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Courteous for 1RR. Not so much when there's no 1RR issue and the user wants others to reinsert their contested material into the article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
MarciulionisHOF, this is so simple, you need to decide if you are going to self revert. If you don't self revert, Kingsindian will decide if they will follow through and report you to AE. There is nothing to do here at ANI. GB fan 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you GB fan for looking into the matter. I noticed a lot gets shrugged off on Wikipedia (might be a good thing). In your opinion, would there be something for ANI to request a change in conduct if aggressive behavior continues and there are not 3 demands but 50? At what point (if ever) does ANI have enough interest as to tell someone to 'cut it out'? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
MarciulionisHOF, reverts for no good reason on WP:ARBPIA articles are not a good idea. If you wait for the discussion thread to reach a consensus you would be on safer ground. Kingsindian appears to be saying that the reasoning for your revert is poor. He is entitled to that opinion and it doesn't seem to be a threat. If you are unsure what he means you can ask on the talk page. How does his threat of taking you to AE differ from your taking him (here) to ANI? EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
MarciulionisHOF, there is no magic number where something becomes a problem that must be dealt with. In this case you are both in the wrong, but neither one raises to the level that anything needs to be done. You both need to discuss the edits and quit reverting until consensus is reached. If consensus can't be reached try Dispute resolution. GB fan 19:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just, for everyone's information, I made the revert myself, slightly changed from the original, which seems to be acceptable to all, including MarciulionisHOF. It means I can't make another revert for 24 hours, but I considered that a lesser evil than going to WP:AE. Others can continue the drama here if they wish. Kingsindian β™β™š 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston. ANI seems good for public clarification on (hopefully) undesirable activity. Isn't AE a place to request banishment rather than clarification? On point: It is my humble opinion, that should anyone embrace self-revert demands as a scare tactic (not as courtesy 1RR reminders), they would be hurting discussion and, certainly, would detract many capable contributors. While I don't see a clear clarification, the editor involved stepped away from this activity -- which is a step in the right direction. Thank you Kingsindian for listening to reason. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The above comment is remarkably inept. If MarciulionisHOF cannot understand this perfectly simple discussion, or worse, if they can understand it and purposefully post the above missing-the-point commentary (with unhelpful external links), it would be better for the project if they kept well away from contentious topics such as ARBPIA. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: why so hostile? (per "remarkably inept"). Is this the language you used before you became an admin as well? If there's something unclear with my perspective, I'd be happy to explain/rephrase/discuss/whatever works. Furthermore, if there is a point you feel I've missed (I paid attention but emphasized what I see as important for the long term), feel free to clarify what it is. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and I'm not hostileβ€”it's best to speak clearly even if that means bluntness must be used. The comment is inept because it misses the point that you had no reason to post at ANI, and Kingsindian has done you a favor, and posting links to silly images is most unhelpful. Do you know what "listening to reason" means? Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm new here so you'll excuse me (I hope) for asking community input on blunt incivility and other "shenanigans" as well as problems in development. I always say it is better to make note of bad ideas -- e.g. "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert."[175] -- early than allow them to become a norm. Do you have another/better location to suggest? (I came here following a link on the DR page).
Apologies if you do not share the sentiment that we are visual beings. Images help me remember (and inspire to do better). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC) + MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
In the above, Panda, GB fan and EdJohnston have provided advice that should have led you to self-revert and request closure of this section. Instead, you have grossly misinterpreted and insulted the person who did you a favor ("Thank you Kingsindian for listening to reason"), and now you are posting links of what you think are "bad ideas" by Kingsindianβ€”why? do you hope to have them sanctioned? Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: 1RR concerns do not apply. According to admin GB_fan, it is possible that we were both in the wrong. There is no clear note on when repeated "self-revert or go to AE" (not 1RR related) comments pose a problem but I hope this thread will serve as protective measure; that anyone embracing such ideas will take a step back. I have also asked for a sanity check on my last relevant argument from an admin (the issue started on another note, when I removed material from a source widely rejected for the infobox). Anyway. Please re-read the rest of what I have written. You attack me, possibly against the desire of your friend[176], and grossly misinterpret my words. I expressed a sentiment that I am against sanctions when a simple "this is not a good idea" comment can be made to prevent poor long term conduct. I hope others will embrace this approach over the ignore until very bad one. It is my experience that it can do wonders. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:58, 25 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”˜My head swirls at reading all of MarciulionisHOF's posts. The posting of pictures in links is one of the more egregious examples of passive/aggressive behaviours that I've seen here. As you are new, you would not be familiar with the Arbitration Committee and their rulings. Certain areas in Wikipedia are so contentious that they have been referred to ArbCom. The committee are a group of highly trusted editors, usually administrators, who have been tasked to deal with articles and topics where a great deal of infighting has occurred. The rulings were laid down so that editors can largely edit in peace as any problematic editors can be sent to [{WP:AE|arbitration enforcement]] and dealt with as the admins deemed necessary. Their request that you self revert was exactly a "this is not a good idea" comment, just a more forceful one. You had two simple options: self revert or explain yourself at WP:AE. Whether you would have been sanctioned at AE is another matter. Blackmane (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • User:MarciulionisHOF, you hope this thread will serve as protective measure? The essay Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass might have been written for you. I hope the link to it will serve as a protective measure against further nonsense. Also, when Blackmane calls your posting of pictures in links "one of the more egregious examples of passive/aggressive behaviours that I've seen here", I suppose he probably hasn't seen the extravaganza of passive aggression and grudge-hugging through "clever" links on your userpage. Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Bishonen | talk 23:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

"Closing note and another matter entirely"
NOTE I had not submitted the other matter to ANI but was asked for evidence on my own talkpage. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • (I've de-headered Marciulionis' late-added header, as what follows here is neither a closing note nor another matter, but the same matter entirely.) Yes, you did raise the matter on ANI, stating that you had been "called a crying-Jew"[177]. To try to make out that you hadn't thereby "submitted" the matter is the purest wikilawyering. I would really stop digging if I were you. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: Actually I did see their talk page, but decided against bringing that up as well in addition to what was already going on here. I was straying into TLDR territory as it was. Blackmane (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Blackmane: Thank you for your input. I may still be a bit peeved for being called caricaturized as a crying-Jew by a repeated offender without anyone showing minimal care but, other than that, I hold no grudge and plan to refrain from battleground mentality and apply as much of the advice given as possible. Editors working on ARBPIA place all kinds of links and poetry on their userpage. Some even make the Jews are the new Nazis allusion[178] but non of these were brought to task. I apologize if my own links strike as offensive, the only intention is a memorabilia of unique moments. Non of the battleground issues mentioned. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) + fix error. No direct "you're a crying Jew" comment but a slightly less obvious allusion. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I've been noted of a policy where I should remove some of links. It is 5am but I will comply asap. Let the others have their allusions, I will not hold a grudge. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I have no issues with anything the user places on his page. In fact, I support the use of user pages for this purpose. But can we please close this useless drama? Kingsindian β™β™š 09:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: MarciulionisHOF's claim above that he'd been "called a crying-Jew by a repeated offender without anyone showing minimal care" may have made others jump besides me, but it obviously didn't happen. I asked for a diff on Marciulionis' page and only got a time-wasting runaround. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC).
    • That is an unfair assessment. I said I was caricaturized and the relevant quote is "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic".[179] The rest was to substantiate that he is indeed a repeated offender on the various WP:ARBPIA decisions, pushing numerous editors other than myself despite being released on good faith from an indefinite editing restriction. If you want to call that a "run around", so be it but it is, nonetheless, unfair. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC) fix MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You are still posting nonsense. Following your first link shows a section on a talk page with title "Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians - proposed new section"β€”in other words, your comment proposes that a section be added to the article saying that (almost all) Palestinians support attacking Israeli civilians, with sources that say no such thing. Please read the response you received and think about it. It is not clear that you have paid it any attention because you believe it is a reference to "a crying-Jew". Your account was created on 22 August 2014. Did people at the Hebrew Wikipedia suggest editing here? Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
A Jew on the receiving end of "endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic", followed up by the assertion that this was "justified" might consider these ample evidence to support a claim that he is being caricaturized. Nishidani made an assumption of bad faith, and violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum.
@Johnuniq: You are in the wrong, misrepresenting my calm approach to a problematic topic and, yes. Khaybar Khaybar, oh Jews – The army of Muhammad has begun its return. Resistance, resistance – we are all with the resistance. (Palestinian spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri) is not a public outcry against killing civilians. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is going nowhere. Allusions to being called here by the Hebrew Wikipedia. Really??! Can Someone close this? Anyone MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It is going nowhere, like most of your editorial interventions because of a pèrsistent attitude of insouciantly distractive flamboyance and provocativeness (links esp.) programmatically declared on your main page, characterized by passive-aggressive divagations and talking past editors in one of the hardest areas of wikipedia. You consistently fail to listen, and what is getting nowhere, is the 'attitude' several neutral parties have remarked on. Kingsindian's act of tolerance to save you from inevitable trouble received a condescending smirk. This was thn followed up by a crack about my ostensibly attacking you qua Jewish, and ostensibly justifying it, ('A Jew on the receiving end of "endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic", followed up by the assertion that this was "justified") is a case in point.
I would recommend closing this if the editor retracts the three succssive attacks, after being cautioned by third parties, or unsupported smears on me as calling him (a) 'a crying-Jew by a repeated offender without anyone showing minimal care, (b)'a repeated offender on the various WP:ARBPIA decisions (untrue), pushing numerous editors (untrue) other than myself despite being released on good faith' (c) the assertion I justified attacking 'a Jew'. I have partially documented on my main page how persistent this attempt to brand me as an antisemitic is, and wikipedia should not allow anyone to repeat this highly offensive crap with impunity. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, despite my attempts to let this matter die a quiet death, drama has ensued, and another editor has been dragged in. Since it is no longer just me, I second Nishidani's comment. If MarciulionisHOF unreservedly retracts these baseless statements, I will let the matter drop. Otherwise I ask for a boomerang, or I will bring this to WP:AE. Kingsindian β™β™š 13:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of personal attack, and I have warned MarciulionisHOF strongly on his page. He'll be looking at a block if he persists. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't mind if this discussion is closed on that note. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

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

Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official "OTRS action" that must not be reverted "without permission"[edit]

Mdann52 (talk Β· contribs) made some very controversial changes to the Generation Rescue article, one of the organizations promoting the pseudoscientific idea that vaccines cause autism, removing most of the content critical to them:

This, naturally, was reverted. At which point he made the changes again, this time as an official OTRS action. (OTRS action Ticket:Ticket:2014091810016149. Please do not revert without contacting me. I have also removed some seemingly unrelated EL; these are not covered by the action.) Edit summary: "DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission. Please see my reply on my talk"

Further, he's also done the same thing at Daniel Amen, stripping criticism ( ), and, when reverted, claiming it's an OTRS action. ( )

This can't be the intended use of OTRS actions, surely? The actions are non-neutral, and serve as a workaround to Wikipedia policy, specifically, WP:FRINGE. The sources being removed are pretty obviously reliable ones; this appears to be a case where the OTRS actions are a way to avoid justifying why sources or text is wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried asking this user what the special considerations are? It appears your first attempt to communicate was to post the ANI notice. Perhaps try to work this out directly before seeking public scrutiny? Chillum 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
People have on the talk page. Not very forthcoming about it though; see Talk:Generation_Rescue#Recent_large_deletions_based_on_concerns_at_OTRS. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. It appears there is private information involved. It is also mentioned that the foundation is involved. I think perhaps a bit of time may be needed. I am eager to hear the point of view of the OTRS worker. I have worked OTRS in the past and I can say that there are some tricky sensitive situations sometimes. Chillum 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict Γ— 3) I usually make such actions when complaints are raised, then work with the people in question to help resolve the issue; In fact, Daniel Amen is a perfect example of this (the OP fails to mention I self-reverted after I got a better picture about what the issues seemed to be [180]. The example linked above is yet another example of this; The person in question is going to participate on the article page as and when; I'm waiting for them to respond to my latest enquiry, but they are more than willing to work with us on this. There are other factors here, which I can't go into detail about on-wiki due to Non-public data rules, however as soon as I can, I will self-revert and do what I can. As it is, in the meantime, people can suggest and make edits still, and I will do what I can. Frankly, raising this here without discussing it with me first is not really very good; As the page I link to whenever I make an edit related to a ticket details, I prefer email, as it allows me to discuss wider than I can on-wiki; I have recieved 0 emails about this since I made the edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict Γ— 4)There's a specific way of challenging an OTRS team edit. See WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution. That should be followed. Having said that I've always been puzzled by the authoritarian statements such as "DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission." which I've seen this OTRS team member use before. I can't see that it is either in the spirit or the letter of what WP:OTRS says. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@DeCausa: there is a lot of context behind this; I'm just trying to advise people of this. Admitidly, I could of put this better, and I will try and do so in the future. None of us are perfect; However, I prefer a quiet word to being pulled up in front of everyone when I have already explained why I am being a tad ambiguous here. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52: I think it would be better (i.e. more likely to elicit co-operation and help you in what you're trying to do) if you were to link specifically to WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution rather than simply declare that your permission is needed (or link to the user page you created). DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
While it should have been handled directly first, I do not have much issue with raising this publicly. As some wise man said "With great power, comes great responsibility". Hopefully, OTRS changes would be made piecemeal, not wholesale. I am not convinced by the discussion on the talk page. It seems to me those concerns about NPOV could have been dealt with in an editorial fashion, instead of using OTRS. But then, I am not privy to private information. Kingsindian β™β™š 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The information removed is sourced to reliable sources, and the "OTRS edit" was basically the removal of most of the mainstream view from the article. While OTRS may be meant to deal with sensitive issues, it's not a backdoor to let organizations stealthily remove mainstream criticism, even if the people object. If the sources are unreliable, or misrepresented, simply stating that is sufficient reason to remove them and the information connected to them - without ever bringing up OTRS, thus making it clear that sensitive information exists in the first place. At the very least, this was massively botched handling of the issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of what was removed I don't have a problem with. I don't think that [181] counts as a reliable source, nor that it meets WP:EL criteria. The edit by Mdann52 was massive, significantly gutting the article in one fell swoop. Nearly all criticism of the article subject was removed, with only the mention that some of the medical community dispute their point of view. The source for that claim, by the way, doesn't even come close to using such watered down language but points out flatly that GR's views aren't supported. Most distressing though was the hammer that MDann52 was using in comments and discussion that OTRS cannot be undone. They mentioned private discussions and a forthcoming draft (oh hey - let's allow a fringe group to write their article! Won't that be just great!). What should have happened was a combination of piecemeal edits, where each one was explained. This wasn't a privacy or legal concern, it was a fringe group trying to white-wash their article and they found a way to do it. Strongly sourced information was removed and just about anything negative to GR was wiped out. This IS a fringe group. Explaining their views and noting that they are held as fringe by the scientific community is part of NPOV. This could have been handled better by Mdann52. About the only thing that wasn't done was a knee-jerk protection as an OTRS action. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"I self-reverted after I got a better picture about what the issues seemed to be." Why are you taking actions when you don't know what the situation is? It sounds a lot like you jump into a situation and perform exactly the edits you are instructed to without any due consideration on your part. This is twice in the last month the editor has been using their OTRS position to whitewash articles, Second Quantization (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to an article without reading the sources first. Removal of sourced content without actually consulting the sources. Failure to understand and apply NPOV. Failure to supply policy based rationale with sources for back up. POV editing as a proxy for COI parties. Claiming OTRS authority to make changes and attempting to suppress reversion improperly claiming OTRS authority. Failure to provide policy based explanations for challenged edits. Failure to provide such explanations when explicitly asked repeatedly. Directly editing as a COI proxy without following COI guidelines. This is clear violation of numerous policies and guidelines. This behavior demands address by an administrator of English Wikipedia and an OTRS administrator. Perhaps a ping to the OTRS admins is needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've commented several times on this and related discussions - we (the OTRS admins) have been aware of the situation. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1[edit]

Mdann52 (talk Β· contribs)'s revert ban under OTRS 'authority' is rescinded and expunged and normal editing practices may continue on Generation Rescue. OTRS may not be used for enforcing edits that violate NPOV, such as white washing, and editors are extremely cautioned about using OTRS as a means to condone and enforce such behavior. OTRS should be used with care.--v/r - TP 20:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the edit has been reverted, and I have no plans to re-revert. I have already directed the person in question to the talk page; Hopefully, they will pop up over there in a few days time. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Not good enough. Besides the ridiculous edit summaries, your commentary on the Talk:Generation Rescue page is truly appalling. Forbidding people from including material in an article simply because of a conversation you are having with an organization is a kind of behavior I have never before encountered. Being an OTRS volunteer does not give you special privileges over other volunteers to claim that people shouldn't revert you. This is outrageous! jps (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree, since this isn't actually a sanction, but a sign that the editor should follow normal procedures this presents no actual impediment for Mdann to perform normal OTRS duties, it serves as a warning from the community, Second Quantization (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2[edit]

The only way to avoid this problem in the future is to demand that the rules forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we allow some ability to act on non-controversial actions. There are, after all, a lot of articles with minimal traffic to their talk pages, and doing a non-controversial, neutral edit like correcting someone's birth date shouldn't have to languish for months. But it's absolutely clear OTRS was abused in this case, and anything remotely like this can't be allowed to happen again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think OTRS agents should justify their edits by wikipedia policy and not use the existing of a ticket to override that; i.e note the existence of a ticket, but provide reasoning in line with standard policy. I don't think OTRS agents should be forbidden from making edits as that seems to add to the workload of trying to get edits that are actually requierd. WMF concerns are achieved through office actions, and would not be affected one way or the other, Second Quantization (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I support this proposal. Edits other than clear BLP issues should be proposed on talk following COI guidelines. Once an OTRS agent is in correspondence with a COI party and has input on the article they are acting as a proxy for the COI party. Becoming involved in editing an article while acting as an OTRS agent is not appropriate. Raising issues and making proposals on talk is the way this should be handled. For low traffic articles an RFC or request to an uninvolved editor can be used. There should be no backdoor for COI editing without scrutiny, transparency and adherence to policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose too over-reaching and restrictive. Minor edits and the like shouldn't be considered non-controversial. Hard cases make bad policy, and we shouldn't change the entire system for one (admittedly very) bad screw-up. --Jayron32 11:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron. Protonk (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. Something along the lines of only labeling clear BLP or privacy issues as OTRS edits I could go for. OTRS shouldn't be restricted from making edits, but their current process for handling disputed edits that are pure content decisions is crap. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron. OTRS is badly backlogged, additional bureaucracy should not be added without a solid reason. It happens that I have made several edits this morning based upon OTRS requests. My usual practice is to include the OTRS ticket number, as well as an explanation, so that non-agents can see why it was done, and agents can see more detail, if needed. I do see I failed to do that in one case, but it was fixing a dead link, so quite innocuous. There may be times that privacy consideration prevent a full disclosure of the reasons. If so, my edit summary will urge contact with an agent before reverting. I think the request is valid, although I'll use softer language than used in this case. @MrBill3: Today, someone pointed out an article title was misspelled. I moved it. Another pointed out a company name had changed, I checked the official company site and moved it. Another pointed out a deadlink, I fixed the link. I think it would be a massive over-reaction to suggest that these are COI by proxy edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Do you think it would increase the backlog and create an excessive delay to have proposed those changes on talk? Why would the normal COI guidelines not apply to actions performed by OTRS team members on behalf of COI correspondents? Shouldn't the existing policy be followed whether an edit is suggested via OTRS or any other means? Some of these edits seem to fall under those that would be acceptable for a COI editor to make directly (minor, unlikely to controversial, clearly factual). I wonder what sources were added to the articles to support those edits. I would suggest an edit performed on behalf of a party with a COI who wrote to OTRS is a COI edit by proxy. This seems to be the definiton of proxy. Some direct editing is supported by the COI guideline but very limited. Should any party be able to write to OTRS to have an edit performed without following the COI guidelines? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Last week, over 800 tickets were handled for the English Wikipedia (this does not count permissions or photosubmissions). Not all resulted in an edit but many did. Asking that the agent write out a request for posting on a talk page, which in many cases gets little traffic would probably double or triple the time needed to handle a ticket. The backlog is already at a level which is concerning. Agents are not permitted to make edits at the direction of others, any edits made must be taken on as the responsibility of the agent. I respectfully decline to make some of the edits requested, and do urge a posting to the talk page, which I often do myself, if I am not comfortable with the edit. If someone if not following the proper procedure, the right thing to do is address that person, not create a bureaucratic hurdle for the rest. If you identify a systematic problem, that's a different story, but there is no hint of that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need to bring out the pitchforks. It is no great tragedy even if there is a bit of a delay due to communication issues and the article is in a "whitish" state for a few hours or days. Eventually it is bound to get clarified: there are no deadlines on WP. I do not know about OTRS in general, so I can't comment more broadly. Kingsindian β™β™š 18:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For reasons given above and also because, as I mention in a sub-section below, Mdann actually removed a whole bunch of BLP violations from that page. Editors protesting here should disperse their lynch mob and go fix up that article with reliable sources actually discussing the subject of the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Despite the American Republican party, Corporations are not people. The worst you can say happened is that 100% reliably sourced information about the head of the organization was, in some cases, used to talk about the organization as a whole, and this only applies to a small part of the information removed. Please stick to facts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3[edit]

The OTRS coordinators are asked to review Mdann52's actions in this incident. Having reviewed all correspondence and other such material, they shall decide whether Mdann is capable of remaining an OTRS volunteer, and whether any other actions are necessary. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS admins are aware of the discussions and are following them, but strongly believe this is an isolated incident. We'll remind agents about the existing policy and make clarifications as necessary. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
However, there was another example of this happening in the past: Look here. So, it's not exactly "isolated", though I will agree that two examples do not make a rule. jps (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rjd0060: So, does that mean that OTRS are or are not able to police their own volunteers if problems arise. Because, if OTRS is functionally capable of dealing with Mdann's abuse of their authority, I'd rather leave it to you to reeducate them, and make sure no incidents happen again. If OTRS is not capable of this, that's a fundamental problem with OTRS, even beyond Mdann's actions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
We've (the OTRS admins) handled this internally and have already spoken with Mdann. We have confidence that this issue was isolated and do not have any reason to believe that any further issues will arise. I've also suggested a modification of the OTRS page here to reflect the actual practice and hopefully clarify things for all users involved. The OTRS admins have no control or authority with regards to what happened on this wiki. If the community decides they would like to take local action against the user they are of course free to do that as well. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note I have just made the change to the OTRS page to further clarify the process. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A specific example[edit]

This was brought up on the talk page, and I think it shows a major problem. In the edit here: - and this is a little hard to see because of a deletion before the change, the sentence "Because of Generation Rescue's public profile through national advertising and because its point of view is not shared by the mainstream medical community, its message has been controversial, etc." was changed to "However, as its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community, its message has been controversial, etc."

When challenged on this, Mdann52 changed it to "most of". However, remember, this was a supposedly "OTRS action" which must not be reverted - and yet which didn't just delete content, but which changed it to insert misrepresentation of the mainstream view. There's three sources for that sentence (Admittedly, one of them rather mispositioned, as it doesn't actually mention Generation Rescue, it's just meant to a secondary reference to show the mainstream consensus, to confirm the sources that do, but is placed on its own) and none of them backs the new phrasing. One could challenge the sentence by asking for better sources for the general statement being made, when the sources are a little more specific, but what one can't do is ignore the sources entirely and make things up.

If there are problems with the article, OTRS volunteers are quite right to step in to fix them. But I don't see how this kind of edit could be justified under any grounds as an official, unrevertable change, as acting to prevent one group from being misrepresented does not mean misrepresenting another group to make them look better.

OTRS edits should be well-thought through, careful, and researched. One could, in an emergency, blank content and ask for time to do research on the talk page. That isn't what was done here, however. When you're actively going against the sources, changing content to misrepresent the mainstream view, that's not a sober, careful fix of a sensitive issue, it's a WP:POVPUSH under an official banner. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Point of clarification on "OTRS edits"[edit]

Hi all. I am an OTRS administrator however I am not speaking on the behalf of anybody but myself. I wanted to clarify a misconception here that I've seen several people imply. OTRS agents have no special authority on local wikis. They of course may happen to be an admin/arbitrator/etc. on a wiki, but they do not act in official OTRS capacity on wiki.

All edits made by an OTRS agent are ultimately under the 'control' or jurisdiction of the local wiki. So in this case, the edits or actions made should be able to stand on their own merit. Edits that are made as a result of an OTRS ticket must be able to stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines.

I have not completely reviewed all of the information on this issue but will continue looking into it on our end. Please see WP:OTRS#Privacy and team members on the English Wikipedia where an OTRS agents' role on the English Wikipedia is further explained. I personally feel that Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#Disagreeing with a team-related edit is not the current practice and needs to be adjusted to reflect so. It seems slightly contradictory to the previous link I posted. With that in mind, however - we do appreciate the understanding from the local communities. As you are probably aware, OTRS sometimes requires that we attempt to handle sensitive issues with regards to content that may not meet Wikipedia guidelines. We would not be as successful as agents if the community was not as cooperative as they have been over the years. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the above explanation I don't see how these two cases can be seen as anything other than an attempt to abuse a claim of authority. If, "Edits that are made as a result of an OTRS ticket must be able to stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines." The removal of well sourced content is not appropriate. Policy is quite clear on content that is strongly supported by a reliable source. Any content removal needs to be supported by policy based rationale, not hand waving at invisible "OTRS" issues. If the content violates policy that can be made clear, the removed content is not suppressed so the information in the content can be discussed and specific policy related to it cited. What "secret information" is needed to present a policy based objection to existing content? The attempt to suppress editing and discussion with an inappropriate (false?) claim of administrative authority seems clearly an abuse of what authority has been granted. Additionally it seems highly inappropriate to make edits that go beyond the unexplained issue at the same time. This was done in both cases. Take note of the quantity of material removed originally from Daniel Amen (and repeatedly removed despite clear rationale for its inclusion given on talk) and then most of it was restored. Also note the lack of policy based rationale provided on talk, clearly not edits which can "stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines." Then asserting (falsely?) the authority the have the edit stand "unless cleared" wtf? Surely an editor with some experience/administrative authority also has a grasp of NPOV in that it does not mean whitewashing or watering down content based on reliable sources. This removal of content diff ES "cleanup, rm stuff not relevant to him" is highly problematic. Did the editor read any of the sources? The rationale for including this content was clearly explained on talk. The editor was directly and clearly asked to explain how OTRS has authority to enforce edits and no explanation of OTRS authority or function was given. This is a big problem. Can an OTRS complaint/ticket/action force WP not to present information published in reliable sources? Should an editor acting under the auspices of the OTRS team be WP:INVOLVED in editing the article they are dealing with as an OTRS team member? - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If the edits are related to privacy or legal issues, I can see the point of saying don't revert an OTRS action without discussion. If the edit is simply a content decision made based on communication with the article subject, that's something else entirely. Saying that edits need to be able to stand on their merit, then making it far more difficult to challenge those edits isn't helpful. Having a way for subjects of an article to comment and/or offer suggestions is ultimately a helpful thing. But having one person (the OTRS agent) make content decisions that aren't driven by sensitive issues and have a process in place that makes it difficult to challenge those decision is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
How can privacy or legal issues come into play if the content is information published in reliable sources? None of the sources for Daniel Amen were other than widely disseminated public publications. If the information is published the legal and privacy issues rest with the publisher not the encyclopedia. I realize there may be specific cases that have to do with what WP policy considers appropriate and there is some room for courtesy and respect, but both of the subjects are publicly prominent. In particular with Generation Rescue this is non-profit that has engaged in substantial media activity, likewise Amen engages in extensive highly public self promotion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
In general, I agree. Specific to these two articles, I haven't seen anything that would be considered a privacy or legal issue. My comment in this section was intended to be more a general thought. There are some things you'll find in reliable sources that BLP says avoid including (kids names, address, etc). But general facts? If a source has been found legally defamatory or retracted, but still used as a source in the article, that's something I can see OTRS involvement, but they should explain why in the edit summary, not a vague hand-waving. OTRS involvement in pure content decisions (sourcing, NPOV, UNDUE, etc) needs to be done in an open manner working with the other editors on the article. I think there can be scenarios where they may have to resort to more drastic measures (strong OWNership, obvious issues being ignored), but that's far and few between and (gasp!) we've got alternatives to help with that in the various noticeboards. Pure content matters should not be done under the OTRS action banner. Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The combination of high-handed action, authoritarian communication, and ill-informed reasoning makes it clear that the OTRS personnel are in dire need of a review followed by a thinning of the herd. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • No action should be taken other than to edit the articles according to policy. Perhaps the claims of special authority were overblown, but in general it is extremely desirable that OTRS agents undertake the work of liasing with external entities. Occasionallyβ€”as with all of Wikipedia's proceduresβ€”there will be unfortunate cases where an OTRS agent is persuaded to make edits that are unwise, but there is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
They locked down the article and threatened people who tried to undo their actions, after editing to whitewash he article. Everyone has lapses of judgement, but a lapse of judgement as large as this situation got - where the OTRS volunteer was talking about a draft they were preparing with the fringe organization to replace the then-current article, while telling anyone who objected to their whitewashing that, as an OTRS change, noone was permitted to do anything about it - is such a severe lapse of judgement that it raises questions of whether they should be trusted with the tools. Perhaps they just got in over their head, and a simple reminder is enough, but Mdann has not offered any explanation of how they let this situation get as far as it did. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a general principle here that if you repeatedly abuse special editing privileges you have been trusted with, they're taken away. One article would be a lapse. Two articles is a repetition. . - Nunh-huh 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you read the commentary of the volunteer, it is clear that they are using the OTRS position as a claim of privilege above-and-beyond other volunteers. We should not have to e-mail an OTRS volunteer to make an edit. We should be able to discuss, on wiki, issues related to reliable sourcing, NPOV, etc. If there are sensitivities that need to be worked out with a third party, that's between the OTRS volunteer and the third party. Their edits are supposed to rise and fall on their own rationale, not on the basis of "I had a conversation and you can't revert because of that." They also claimed that the WMF was getting involved as though WP:OFFICE or something gave them mandate. This is all just really gross. jps (talk) 03:01, 26 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”˜ I'm thinking that this should result in some strict rules which forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues.

Especially legal threats (not an issue here) received through that system should be met in the same way we normally deal with them....strong resistance. We will not be intimidated by such threats. We rely on RS for our content, and editors are protected by laws which protect users of the internet who reproduce content created by others. OTOH, the original creators of those RS may be liable if they libel someone, but those who copy or quote their work are protected by law.

The OTRS system must not be compromised by COI suspicions. The volunteers should not be allowed to get caught in such situations. They can get caught in the middle of matters which are far beyond their knowledge and area of responsibility. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing I'm wondering, after reading all this: are "OTRS volunteers" doing something problematic and bringing suspicion upon themselves - that is, is this a systemic problem - or is this literally a case of one volunteer not understanding the guidelines he was operating under, and people reacting out of the fear that it's not that he misunderstood, it's that this is just what's done? Because if it helps, this is the first time I'm aware of this sort of action being an issue since I've been an OTRS agent, and in fact I distinctly remember absorbing "don't think that 'because OTRS' trumps the usual editing rules, because it doesn't and it would get you in big trouble" from other volunteers, the wiki pages, and the OTRS manual when I was new on OTRS. There's even an OTRS response template that goes something like "OTRS does not make edits on request, since all edits are subject to community consensus. Here's how to make/request your edits onwiki."

In short, it's never been the case that volunteers are taught that their edits are inviolable or that they should make requested article edits as a matter of course, so responding to this incident as "those OTRS volunteers! They need to stop abusing their rights!" rather than "what went wrong in training, that this one person didn't get that training?" seems out of place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter is entirely correct here, so much so it bears repeating with as much emphasis as possible. Not one person has presented evidence that there is a problem with the OTRS system which needs fixing. Not one. What there is is one editor, in one instance, has demonstrated a pretty grievous lack of judgement. The question we need to ask is "Had the system been different (that is, had the changes people are clamoring for been in place), would it have prevented this?" The answer, of course, is "No." Because no system, set of rules, and training can prevent people from making free choices in their own actions. Poor choices cannot be stopped, and no one has presented any evidence that the system as a whole suffers from people being poorly educated on their role in OTRS. Instead, we have a case of someone making a poor decision, a singular poor decision, that nothing could have prevented. So there's no point in wringing our hands and saying "Oh no, what is wrong with OTRS!!!" There's nothing wrong with OTRS. Something is wrong with what this one person did this one time. Fix this one problem, and move on. --Jayron32 14:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This seems to be a single OTRS volunteer who has (apparently with two different fringe articles) gone too far. It needs to be made more clear that OTRS volunteers' edits are not above policy. (A BLP related deletion by ANYONE is not to be reverted, so using OTRS concerns should not be mentioned in a manner which intimidates other editors.) OTRS volunteers could still make uncontroversial and minor edits without any problem, but it would be wise to stay away from using OTRS concerns as an excuse to make controversial edits. Mention those concerns on the talk page and guide other editors. Just use the normal processes and work with other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is a problem with the OTRS system if Mdann keeps his status with OTRS, without any sort of public censure and/or promises never to do it again. Mdann has not, at this time, admitted any wrongdoing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a sitting arbitrator doing exactly the same thing last year: [182]. Notice this statement [183] which is directly contradicted by sources [184] (and [185] who got court documents). So I wonder if it is how OTRS volunteers are instructed, rather than one bad apple, Second Quantization (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Given the comments above by S Philbrick I am led to wonder if OTRS agents are trained in such a way that they understand their edits must follow existing policy. In editing on behalf of an OTRS correspondent who has a conflict of interest they are performing edits that should be done following the COI guideline. Just because Joe from Acme wrote OTRS that doesn't mean that the edits Joe suggests should not be executed in adherence to the COI guideline, they are still edits proposed by a party with a COI. The COI guideline is quite clear that the edits that should be performed directly are very limited. What is the policy at OTRS regarding making edits for parties who write OTRS that have a COI? From what I understand OTRS agents should be following PAG. COI is clearly not being followed very closely. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:COI and WP:MEAT apply to any editor, including OTRS volunteers, who attempt to make edits on behalf of another person. AGF applies to other editors, not to outside sources. Outside sources are still bound by our rules (but they don't follow them), which is to provide a RS for their information. Then OTRS volunteers should present the concern and the RS on the article's talk page and let other editors deal with it. We should be distrustful of outside sources and do as we always do here, which is to let the Reliable and Verifiable sources determine the matter. OR from an outside source is not a RS which is verifiable by ALL Wikipedia editors, ergo we cannot use it to guide our editing. Outside sources have agendas, and we must recognize that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Further, Mdann has not yet admitted any wrongdoing. It's all very well to call this an "isolated incident", but if there's no admission of wrongdoing, and no indication that Mdann will use OTRS requests more carefully, and research matters before acting in future, this problem can hardly be considered dealt with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I fear you are right, because they still don't show evidence they understand the problem. COI editors and outside sources should always be treated with extra care and some degree of skepticism. The reason we don't hold them to the same standards as others is that they have a COI and bias which will naturally tend to skew article content away from NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
To be completely fair, I must point out that Mdann52 finally did begin to admit being "over-hasty", but only after multiple editors had gotten on their case. Something needs to be done with the basic instructions to OTRS volunteers and the public guidelines for the OTRS system which will prevent this type of thing from happening again. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That does seem to indicate a problem, yeah. If Mdann wants to continue as an OTRS agent, he needs to understand and abide by the limitations of the role. If we can't be sure he can do that, he should not have OTRS access, in my non-OTRS-admin opinion. At the same time, however, I don't think "public censure" or forcing him to admit "wrongdoing" is what we should be aiming for here. If the goal is for him to conform to the limitations of the OTRS role, then the way to fix it is either for his permissions to be revoked, or for him to commit (publicly or to the OTRS admins; frankly it's more the admins' purview than it is ANI's) to abiding by the limitations of the role going forward - not for us to make a show of embarrassing him via a toothless "censure" pour encourager les autres. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, but, if they are to retain OTRS volunteer status, then something making it clear that they understand where they went wrong and will return to using the tools necessary has to happen. This could be Mdann showing they understand what they did wrong; it could be the OTRS coordinators making it clear they'll be watching Mdann's behaviour through censure, it could be anything else in that line. But, at the moment, Mdann is showing no indication they understand the scope of their problem.
I don't think that kicking him out of OTRS is the best solution, if it can be avoided. We want our actions to be preventative, not punitive. But, if we don't have clear indicators Mdann definitely won't do this again, I think we would be foolish to drop this discussion without taking the alternative, less-preferable actions. #Proposal 3, above, was meant to be a face-saving way for OTRS to deal with this privately with Mdann; the response there does not inspire any faith in OTRS's ability to police its own. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Per the new response at #Proposal 3, this seems to have been dealt with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

General problems with the article[edit]

I perused the citations in the current article and from what I can tell very few of the sources cited at present actually make any mention of Generation Rescue. Particularly, this article in the LA Times makes no mention of the group whatsoever, but is used to make very negative implications about the group. Having seen the state prior to the first revert, it was clearly bad, including a bunch of BLP violations and widespread use of self-published blogs. People can call it white-washing, but the vast majority of the material was original research or poorly sourced and much of it still is that way. The article is better as a result of Mdann's actions and, instead of trying to lynch Mdann here, editors should instead focus on finding reliable sources for the article that are actually about the group rather than repeatedly restoring dreck just because it happens to suit their POV.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Jenny McCarthy, a former Playboy model and actress who has written about raising an autistic son, has appeared twice on "Larry King Live" since September, arguing that vaccines trigger autism."[186] QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm . . . *checks title of article and checks quote* . . . I believe you have the wrong article. We are talking about the article on Generation Rescue, the article you are looking for is thataway.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Today, Generation Rescue is known as a platform for Jenny McCarthy's autism and anti-vaccine advocacy.[5] Generation Rescue is run by Jenny McCarthy. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Generation Rescue and Jenny McCarthy are often properly identified with each other. It's her vehicle. Otherwise this subsection is getting us off track here. Content discussion should happen at the article's talk page. Here we are talking about abuse of OTRS in a COI manner, IOW meatpuppetry for a fringe organization. OTRS volunteers are not supposed to do that. They are not above our policies and guidelines. There were no BLP issues, and nothing that couldn't be handled in the ordinary manner, so there was no justification for shortcircuiting and bypassing normal editing. There was certainly no justification for edit warring. Those are the issues to be discussed here, not any content issues. Those are now being worked out at the article. Stay on topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because McCarthy runs it does not mean every article about McCarthy should be considered an article about Generation Rescue. Such an approach would turn it into a BLP coatrack, which is what it was before Mdann got involved. The person and the group are separate and, for your information, a lot of stuff cited on that page does not even mention McCarthy. As far as this not being about content, it is about content since you are going after the person who removed the content. If the content being removed violates our policies then your argument for malfeasance kind of falls flat.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Mdann never made such an argument, and he didn't just remove things that referenced McCarthy - they removed everything that was at all critical, regardless of quality of source. Had they removed poorly cited content - and said that was why they were removing it - that would be quite a different thing to actively rewriting content to misrepresent the mainstream view, or saying that they were working on a draft of the article with the organization in question.
The thing is, were that the reason, and had Mdann mentioned that, people would be able to act to fix the article with better sources. But if the OTRS volunteer simply removes all critical content, doesn't give reasons, and states that no content may be restored because it's an OTRS action, then that justification is insufficient, because it offers no road forwards for people to maintain important policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Even if we accept that was entirely Mdann's rationale, by not explaining themselves, they turned a fixable article that needed resourced and rewritten to an unfixable by OTRS fiat POV mess. The problem is the heavy-handedness; any legitimacy one can find for the changes after the fact is irrelevant, because Mdann never offered any argument in its defense other than "secret OTRS communications of a sensitive nature that I can't tell you" - which offers no way to move forwards on fixing the article.
And that's presuming the best possible view of his actions - which is unjustified. Because Mdann's removals was not, so far as I'm aware, solely limited to things that failed to specifically mention Generation Rescue, it was indiscriminate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:49, 26 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”˜The place for discussions of content and sources for the article Generation Rescue is thataway. The subject of this filing is involved editing with claims of no reversion allowed by an OTRS agent acting as a proxy COI editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Those claims hinge on the edits being bad for removing policy-compliant material. Evidence to the contrary is certainly appropriate here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to TDA's obnoxious behavior, I have started this discussion. jps (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No the claim of making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest and asserting that no revision is permissible based on the edit being performed by an OTRS agent has nothing to do with the validity of those edits, the content or sources of the article(s) edited. Once again that discussion is thataway. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I am with MrBill3 on this one. Even if the edits were of the highest quality and even if the removed material consisted of 100% unambiguous BLP violations, making edits for someone with a COI and forbidding revision on OTRS grounds would still be unacceptable. We remove BLP violations all of the time, with no need to make our doing so unrevertable. If reverts that restore BLP violations are a problem, a quick note to ANI gets nearly instant results, including blocks, page protection, and revdels, as appropriate. This is an improper solution to a problem that we are well equipped to handle without any unrevertable OTRS editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The person who filed this case talked about the article being whitewashed and that is a major focus of the criticism Mdann has received. If the material is in fact not acceptable per our policies then talk of a whitewash is mistaken. Adding material backed by reliable sources that are actually talking about the subject would resolve the problem. Were the complaint merely about the theoretical implications of OTRS editing then ANI is not the place to handle it. Should a COI editor directly make edits, but those edits just remove material that violates our policies then we generally don't rake them over the coals for it. Why should an editor acting per a request from a conflicted party be any different?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
TDA you seem to be ignoring the fact the same activity occured at Daniel Amen, where content was removed with an ES saying not relevant when the sources specifically named the subject of the article, some repeatedly, some as primary focus. And when reverted there redid edit with summary "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so". Refused to provide policy based explanations on talk when asked directly twice. So again the primary issue is COI proxy editing, asserting authority to suppress reversion and failure to provide policy based rationale to support edits on talk which has occured twice. Secondarily the content removed from Daniel Amen was improperly removed as it was relevant to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that since the focus of the filing party was clearly on the Generation Rescue article, but the edits there also seem appropriate, even if the initial reasoning was not entirely valid (I believe the reasoning was that it applies more to the guy's clinics or the procedure than the guy). It does look like the 2005 APA statement only alludes to Amen by using him as a reference about the practice, while the 2012 statement appears to make no mention or allusion to him at all (both are included in the same PDF file so this may be the reason both are seen as relevant). Seems the other material Mdann tried to remove from the article was gratuitously redundant and was inserted solely to have more negative commentary. There was more than enough criticism of the guy already. Clearly Mdann wasn't whitewashing anything on that article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I smell IDHT. "I hadn't seen that" did you read the filing and check the diffs? The edits at Daniel Amen are clearly a part of the original filing, are you jumping in without actually reading the filing and checking the diffs? Second material removed (diff) was sourced to 1) an article about Amen in The Washington Post Magazine 2) Farah & Gillihan (2012) which discusses Amen and his practice, studies extensively 3) Hall 2005 and 2008 again about the subject 4) The 2005 APA consensus statement as you mentioned explicitly mentions the subject 5) The 2012 APA statement is a follow up to the 2005 statement and addresses the same subject matter. The principle activity of the subject and reason for his notability is the activities of his medical practice and his clinics (of which he is CEO and Medical Director). The main technique discussed in reliable sources (and by Amen himself) used by these clinics is SPECT, the subject has made multiple assertions about his use of SPECT. The presentation of the mainstream medical scientific consensus relating to biomedical information must be predominant and clear in any article, see WP:MEDRS. If Amen asserts SPECT is useful for diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric conditions (which he does and charges a great deal of money for in his practice) then the article must present the current medical knowledge on SPECT for diagnosis and treatment... as clearly and explicitly and in due proportion. Per NPOV the content should represent what is published in reliable sources per due. There had already been extensive discussion on talk about these sources and about the appropriateness of clearly and explicitly presenting the current medical knowledge regarding the technique promoted by Amen and practiced by him and his clinics. The appropriate amount of "criticism of the guy" is proportional per due in RS not in a WP editor's opinion.
You are also conveniently ignoring the ES "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so." It is this type of claim of authority that is at the root of this filing. It is also the failure to present the type of arguments and rationale you are providing here (again the WRONG VENUE) and get consensus support for challenged edits (please take this to the TALK PAGES of the SPECIFIC ARTICLES and work on getting consensus for your opinion there). Here the issues are 1) POV/COI editing with 2) claims of unchallengable editing 3) lack of discussion and consensus 4) general failure to follow PAG based on status as an OTRS agent. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You cannot say the issue is POV editing and then credibly suggest the article's content is not a valid issue here. Did the material Mdann removed comply with our policies? If the answer is yes then it is POV editing. If the answer is no, then it is not POV editing. Here I am saying the answer is no the material Mdann removed did not comply with our policies. For the record, the Amen article still had plenty of criticism of him and his methods and noted the position of mainstream science. The article complied with WP:FRINGE in both versions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If you would like to raise the questions you have about the edits on the talk page of the article (after reading the talk archives) I think you will find there is strong consensus against the position you are taking and that is based on substantial discussion, policy based rationale and sources. Your contention that the material removed "did not comply with our policies" is not supported by the consensus interpretation of policy ON THE TALK PAGE of the article (and the archives). The removal of sourced material with consensus support does not comply with our policies. The repeat of such removal without providing policy based rationale on talk and gaining consensus is a clear violation of policy. The assertion of authority to ban reverts of one's edits based on being an OTRS team member is highly problematic and seems a clear violation of English WP policy and OTRS policy. So far an aknowledgement of this from Mdann or OTRS admin is lacking. Editing based on the requests of a party with a conflict of interest (the definition of proxy) without following the COI guidelines does not comply with our policies. Per COI "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." (emphasis in original). Thus clearly an edit made on the behalf of a party with COI that has been reverted should be discussed on talk. NOT repeated with a bogus revert ban. As the edit was removal of content that had been extensively discussed and was supported by consensus the edits and assertions of needing to be "cleared" to restore the content were gross violations of policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to what MrBill3 actually wrote. He wrote "making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest". That is not the same thing as "POV editing". The issue -- the specific issue that I am concerned about -- is the combination of making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest and claiming that the edits cannot be reverted because of OTRS. You keep claiming that the specific issue that I am concerned about is something else. That's wrong. You could argue that it 'should be' something else, but the fact remains that I am well aware of what concerns me, I have clearly explained what concerns me twice now, and what concerns me has nothing to do with the quality of the edit. Please stop trying to make this about POV editing. The edits were wrong even if NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Long story short is, the article after the changes was a major violation of our NPOV policy. Before, it at worse needed some - not all - of the sources improved. Sources needing improved is a case for tagging, not for massive deletion of content, creating a POV mess and lockdown. Mdann unambiguously violated WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in their edits. Further, Mdann did not raise any policy when asked to defend their edits, just cited secret OTRS communication. Had they given reasons for their edits, and cited policy, we wouldn't be having this argument, we'd be fixing the article to respond to Mdann's concerns. It does not add a single jot to Mdann's case to come up with possible justifications for a part of their edits, particularly as, even if we accept the edits were justified - and I'm not saying they are, but even if we did, BLP does not apply to corporations, so Mdann had no right to lock the article down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The article before the changes was a major violation of our NPOV policy. At least after the changes it generally comported with our V and BLP policies. With all the time you guys have spent trying to lynch someone over the matter, you could have easily found some actual reliable sources that actually discuss the subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You clearly do not understand WP:NPOV - NPOV is not presenting the subject in a positive light. When the subject expresses fringe beliefs, and we report on them, we are required by WP:FRINGE - part of the NPOV policy - to put those fringe beliefs in context. It's not worth discussing this with you further if you don't understand the policies being discussed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not say the article was NPOV-compliant after Mdann's edits, only that neither version was compliant with NPOV, but Mdann's version was compliant with V and BLP. That is on the people who were not providing policy-compliant material for criticism of Generation Rescue, not Mdann.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You are literally the only person seeing BLP issues. You do realise corporations aren't people, right? Further, Mdann added inaccuracies, such as his misrepresentation of the scientific consensus, so Verifiability is shot as well. Your argument holds no water. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You should look more carefully at the article prior to Mdann's edits because there are plenty of BLP violations and I am not talking about material concerning the group itself. As far as the scientific consensus part, I am not seeing where the statement is backed by the source at all so it was a verifiability issue before and after Mdann's changes.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Adam, I couldn't disagree with you more. I am personally no supporter of non-standard science, and certainly I regard their view of this controversy as bothvery unlikely, and dangerous; but that does not change the need for a proper article. This was a proper attempt to remove disproportionate coverage. This article is about the Association. It's enough to indicate that they support a non-stanfard view of the subject. Discussion of why their virw is not standard is extensively covered elsewhere in WP--extensively, and appropriately, on the basis of the scientific evidence, just as it ought to be.The view is not unique to them--the explanation of their view in detail or its refutation is no more needed here than an explanation of why the evidence for flying saucers is insufficient at the article on a SF fan club. Repeating it here is unnecessary, inappropriate, and confusing. If this was a group supporting the scientific consensus of the matter, it would be equally wrong to explain the consensus in detail--every bit as wrong as to explain the basis of climate change in an article either on either climate change denialists or eon environmental activists. In an article on manufacturer of widgets, when they attempt, as they often do, to explain the great social utility of widgets in general, we remove it as promotionalism.
As for the OTRS aspect, I have deliberately not see the oTRS correspondence, tho I am an OTRS agent, because it doesn't matter. The material does not belong here. I agree it is inappropriate just to give OTRS as a reason, but one of the proper uses of OTRS is people complaining about this sort of prejudicial content, to get proper attention on it, and to overcome the bias of people who because they how they are right, and in fact are right, need to spread the truth everywhere regardless of encyclopedic balance. OTRS is, among other things, our key defense against promotionalism. I use it to explain to companies, more personally than I could do here, just why their edits are improper, and to tell them how to reach a solution in keeping with WP. When necessary, after telling them what would both address the interests of truth and balance, I often make the edits directly. I have as much right as an OTRS agent to make a edit on behalf of a COI user as anyone else does. But though I will mention I', editing in response to an OTRS request, they have the right to have their privacy preserved as much as any other user does--I act as the intermediate for the purpose, just as I would act if I were verifying a copyright donation.
OTRS is one of the things that work best in WP. I delayed being active there for many years, because I could see I see I was not needed,and have only become more active to handle the incoming flood of promotionalism. It does have the same problem as the rest of WP, that there are a considerable number of people all acting independently, and , just like admins, reluctant to interfere with each other to avoid causing chaos. This does give the need for some degree of oversight. It is presentthere informally, for we can see each others' work. But it is always unwise to leave things at that without some formal review--just as we have Deletion Review for administrative speedys. We have it in a sense for OTRS edits, because they are made openly in the face of the community. But we do need a formal mechanism for ensuring accuracy and consistency of operation at OTRS--I understand that some steps are being taken in this direction. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
He actively changed statements of the scientific consensus to "some doctors", DGG. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The changed to "most", still not a good expression of the breadth and depth of the scientific/medical/academic/official consensus general watering down and changes that remove positions clearly held and publicized in the past. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
He changed it to "some" as Adam said ("its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community" [187]), a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Deleting over emphatic criticism is one thing. Misrepresenting the mainstream view is something else. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll crosspost what I put on the Fringe Noticeboard, because, on reflection, I should have said it here: Perception is all, and when an editor breezes into a contentious article and makes changes with basically the rationale "secret squirrel - I know stuff you don't - don't alter my important action without 'clearing' it with me", then it gets folks backs up. From that point things are never going to go well. I'm sure, DGG, had you handled this, it would have gone very differently - even if there was not universal agreement for your actions. Regular editors need to see the rationale behind these actions, and there should have been no problem being transparent here. Nothing I can see required the "I can't tell you why I'm doing this" approach. That will result, rightly or wrongly, in a fear that COI edits are being made by proxy without proper process or consensus, via a "back-door". I'm encouraged by your comments about training. Notwithstanding any of that, I can fully understand why folks here want to see some acknowledgement of the errors in approach at least, to be reassured that these concerns are understood and addressed. Begoon talk 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is Mdann's edit summary in the editor's first edit on the Generation Rescue article: "rm some poorly cited material, some uncited material, and other non neutral stuff. See also - Ticket:2014091810016149". No talk of being a secret squirrel. That only came after people kept reverting Mdann's actions. Reasons were given and they were fairly good reasons as I have been attempting to explain.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:33, 28 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”˜ TDA still flogging the content aspect in the wrong venue? That only serves the same purpose as any straw man argument, which is to divert attention from the real issue here, which is a misuse of OTRS. Nothing needed to be done which could not have been done by following normal collaborative editing procedures, including any possible BLP issues. Even Mdann52 later realized that and backed off.

TDA, your harping on this issue here is quite tendentious and disruptive. You are wasting our time. Stop it. Mdann52 could have been a million percent right and the manner he did it was still wrong. It's the "wrong manner" part we're discussing here. Are you really incapable of understanding that? If so, then you shouldn't be commenting in areas where you lack competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was brought to this page under the header "Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official 'OTRS action' that must not be reverted 'without permission'" and the comments by the filer make it clear that the edits themselves are in large part the reason for the complaint, not the OTRS action in isolation. There is no objective way to view the nature of the content as off-topic when the discussion started off as a complaint about the content changes being made. The allegation of misuse is clearly predicated on the content changes being inappropriate on their own. If your objection is strictly to the idea of someone saying an OTRS action should not be reverted without being discussed privately, or how OTRS requests are handled generally, then this is the wrong venue for your complaint. You need to take that up at another page that concerns procedural policy on this matter.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no rule that says we have to pay any attention to what the person filing the report thinks the issue is. It often happens on ANI that the original complaint is dismissed out of hand and everyone focuses on another issue that came up during the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Except, the two issues are inseparable. The idea that there was malfeasance is based on the edits being inappropriate. An OTRS editor was informed of problems with an article. Said editor found problems with the article and sought to address them. Honestly, it does not seem there was sufficient consideration for the state of the article prior to Mdann's edits until I raised the issue here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears that you are the only person here who finds the two issues to be inseparable, and I completely reject your notion that "the idea that there was malfeasance is based on the edits being inappropriate". That statement is simply not true. You have restated your opinion on this again and again and as far as I can tell have convinced nobody, It is time to drop the stick. (I would have said "concern", BTW; I am not ready to accuse anyone of malfeasance.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Were the material being removed considered completely inappropriate by everyone involved, we would not be here at all. Period. Full stop. No one is going to complain at ANI about an OTRS edit if they believe it was removing material that did not comply with our policies. It certainly would not gain as much traction at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

I think this issue has been hashed out pretty well. I'd like to see the stick dropped in regards to Mdann. IMO a statement by OTRS administration that, except in clear cases of BLP or privacy issues, edits by OTRS editors:

1) Must follow English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including COI, and should be argued for with policy based rationale on talk when challenged

2) Have NO exemption from reversion or discussion on talk and assertions of such are not appropriate

would be a step in the right direction. (As a point of fact BLP and privacy issues have substantial means of address within existing WP PAG.) An acknowledgement of the same by the editor involved would also be useful.

The issue that remains somewhat unclear is the application of COI when an OTRS editor is acting based on input from an unseen email. Does off wiki communication with a party that is not editing WP themselves create an instance of COI editing by proxy and require disclosure when making edits based on/inspired by that communication? I understand that an OTRS agent made aware of problems with an article can make an assessment (how independent? how thorough?) of the article and edit the article to improve it. When driven by off wiki secret correspondence this becomes fuzzy.

A clear and specific acknowledgement of the problems with the actions on the two articles in the filing might allow this discussion to move towards addressing the remaining clarification I think is needed. I am hoping both English WP admins and OTRS admins can propose a way forward that allows OTRS agents to act efficiently while ensuring adherence to English WP PAG. While the above discussion has delved far into discussing the merits of edits, some clarification of how OTRS agents should proceed and how edits should be done and argued for might be useful. I invite other editors to raise concerns I do not address.

Per WP:Volunteer Response Team, "Most requests relating to usual editorial matters are referred to normal on-wiki processes." Shouldn't normal on-wiki processes absolutely involve argument in support of challenged edits on talk? No criteria is given for what requests are handled by other than normal on-wiki processes, let's assume privacy, BLP and defamation are. What else? Why not be clear and explicit? On the same page @ Dispute resolution, "The volunteer team strongly recommends that you contact the editor responsible prior to reverting." Shouldn't this section first make clear that OTRS agent edits are subject to WP PAG and the normal dispute resolution process, particularly including discussion on the talk page of the article? Shouldn't it make clear that OTRS agent edits should stand on their merits? Regarding, "the agent may be in possession of confidential information that should not be published on a public site such as Wikipedia." while such information should be held in confidence what bearing does that have on edits made on WP? Except for an internal OTRS issue that the anonymity of the OTRS correspondent should be maintained, shouldn't COI be disclosed per policy? Shouldn't edits be worked out in accordance with PAG? Even for fairly basic editing where is the problem with requiring OTRS agents to disclose an edit has been made at the suggestion of a party with a COI?

If issues with NPOV and or DUE seem apparent to an OTRS agent shouldn't a discussion on talk be started at the time of the edit, particularly if based on input from a party with a COI? Even for basic generally non controversial edits a posting on talk doesn't seem like an onerous burden on an OTRS agent performing an edit. I think acknowledgement of and strict adherence to PAG, and transparency would go far to help the community maintain good faith and work collaboratively with OTRS agents. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3, I don't think we've met. Thanks for your contributions, and for your interest in this subject.  :-) I'm a little confused though - I thought that Rjd0060 had already (a couple of times) met the request that you make at the top for those statements. If there's something else you think needs to be done, I'm afraid I'm being a little too dense to figure out what it is. Do you think another statement is necessary? If so, where and to whom, and why aren't the ones that he's just made (in his role as an OTRS admin) enough?
I truly do want to make sure that legitimate concerns are addressed here, but I also want to be sure that we're not focusing our energy on a problem that's already on the way to solution. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Philippe Beaudette, I also think we have not met. The pleasure is mine. First if the other editors involved in this discussion feel it has been adequately addressed, I am willing to "drop the stick". Of concern to me are a number of issues 1) The differentiation between Rjd0060's statements speaking only for themself and those as an OTRS admin is not entirely clear. 2) I don't see in this discussion or especially on Volunteer Response Team (VRT) clear and adequate explanation that OTRS team member edits are subject to and must follow PAG. 3) That the dispute resolution section of the same does not explicitly state that talk page discussion and existing WP PAG are primary and acceptable for disputing OTRS team member edits. 4) Of particular importance, an explicit statement that OTRS team member assertions of revert ban authority were in this case and others not OTRS or WP policy. 5) A clear statement that edits driven/inspired by confidential input from a party with COI are COI edits and should be declared as such.
I think an additional statement from an OTRS admin (here) that addresses all five points explaining OTRS policy would provide needed clarity. I also think a revision to VRT that reflects the policy clearly is needed. A statement from an English WP admin that addresses these points with an explanation of policy would also be useful. As above I am willing to yield to a consensus of concerned editors. Also in the interest of not unnecessarily expending energy on a resolved problem, I think problems that arise may be dealt with when they occur. I would point out a problem "on the way to solution" is one that has not reached a solution.
I thank you and the editors above for their contributions to the project and their efforts in addressing this/these issues. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This is Wikipediaβ€”there are no cast-iron undertakings about anything. The situation is that an OTRS volunteer made a mistake by overstating their position. It's not the end of the encyclopediaβ€”we will survive. OTRS volunteers (who almost always do wonderful and highly appreciated work) have obviously got the message, and no further time needs to be spent debating the constitution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not good enough. There are too many uncertainties. Yes, one OTRS volunteer clearly acted inappropriately, although they don't seem to yet completely understand what they did wrong, and that's a problem. Part of why they don't understand might lay in the fact that there isn't an explicit enough statement that Wikipedia PAG are the ultimate authority, not some secret communications involving OR information and COI-inspired pressure to tweak existing content away from NPOV. (Clearly BLP and privacy issues can already be dealt with under existing PAG. There is no need to wave "OTRS" as a type of privilege which trumps PAG.)
We need to read "in print" (not declarations that "we understand") that OTRS is not a shadow government capable of ignoring PAG. It needs to be written clearly that OTRS cannot use secret information and OR as justifications to ignore RS and allow COI individuals to steer content away from NPOV. Those are not acceptable options or alternatives to normal PAG.
Much as many COI individuals/organizations might like to think, OTRS should not be used as a method for circumventing, short circuiting, or getting around PAG, but is only a means of jump starting the process of dealing with problems, and that "dealing" with them will happen in the normal manner (collaborative editing), with openness and discussion. Until we can actually SEE this in writing, there will be distrust. The current debacle would never have happened if such declarations had been clearly written, with no room for misunderstanding.
I can see no scenario where there would be any exception to using normal collaborative editing procedures, including dealing with BLP issues. Can you name even one? If you can, then it needs to be included in existing PAG. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
With my OTRS admin hat on, I made the edit you are looking for. Long of the short, I removed the "per OTRS" as a reason in the dispute resolution page to make an edit. That's not acceptable and agents are not trained to think so, as RjD0060, Fluffernutter, DGG, Jayron32 and others have noted. The notion of "per OTRS" being acceptable went away around 2010 and now it's actually gone from policy. I'd like to thank those for bringing up that the process pages were not up-to-date as far as OTRS standards go and I appreciate this opportunity to read the community discussing this. The OTRS agent community is moving forward in being as transparent and community-oriented as possible in light of what is handled and there are some relics of old processes that still remain in some places, such as this case. If you're interested in watching/listening to a (brief) overview of the most common emails OTRS receives and how we handle them, you can watch my half hour Wikimania presentation from London on YouTube. Keegan (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I can see the need to push back against the idea that an elite editing crew have special powers to dictate what occurs in articles, but are there other known cases of a problem? I quickly scanned the archives of WP:OTRS/N since January 2013 and did not notice any issues raised (WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution says to raise issues there if unsatisfied with other discussions). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There was this edit last year when Deepak Chopra contacted OTRS and got the volunteer to make some decidedly non-neutral edits on his behalf. Again, note the ES says not to revert without contacting the agent (which I ignored, leading to this discussion on Talk). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3 asked me to comment--so, to expand a little on what I said yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team:
I don't think we are finished until the policy statements at WP:Volunteer Response Team and elsewhere have been revised. Even if they were intended properly, they make much greater g=claims of privileged editing than supported by the fundamental policy of the nature of WP as a user-contributed encyclopedia. Several issues have been confused:
(1) The actual quality of the edits that gave rise to this discussion. In general , I support the edits. They did mostly serve to remove a rather blatant bias. Whether they went to far in the opposite direction is for the article talk page.
(2) The attempt to use OTRS authority in making the edits. This was totally unnecessary and inappropriate. They used no confidential information. There was nothing there that could not and should not have been openly addressed. If agreement could not be reached on the article talk page, then the further ordinary on-wiki steps were available.
(3) As an OTRS agent, I've seen the communication there that gave rise to the edit. It is a COI communication from a paid public relations agent, and, as is often the case even with justified complaints, claims altogether too much, and should not have been taken at face value. To do so implies a non-critical approach and an unawareness of the actual situation. The job of OTRS is to filter and mediate complaints, not necessarily to resolve them. Sometimes a necessary edit is so obvious it can be made without prior negotiation. This was not one such an instance.
(4) In a situation like this, I consider it to have been poor practice within the existing parameters of OTRS to proceed immediately from such a complaint to make an edit--the better course would first to have discussed the problem with the complainant, to clarify what would and would not be possible within WP editing policy. After that, in a case such as this , the ORTS agent would have had the choice between making what they consider the appropriate edit, while saying they were doing it on the basis of an outside request (we must indicate when we edit on behalf of another) but not claiming any special authority other than that of trying to assist a situation, or of referring the complainant to the article talk page for discussion, or of posting appropriate portions or paraphrases of the hopefully revised complaint there themselves, explaining what they were doing. The OTRS agent was illegitimately attempting to bypass normal editing is correct--even if the edits were desirable.
(5) This situation was not unique: other OTRS agents have done similarly. They should not be doing it in such situations. They have in disputed situations like this no special powers whatsoever, and an attempt to claim it is an attempt to claim super-editor, a privilege that does not exist in WP. (There is a privilege to suppress material or to block vested in every administrator but subject to the review of every other administrator and discussion on-wiki, and in some cases supervision by arbcom; and the right of WP:LEGAL or the oversight team to make a suppression or a block that cannot be reversed by an admin or ANI in the usual way, but which there is an existing review mechanism).
(6) The unique ability of an OTRS agent is the access to private information. Nothing further.
(7) Problems from this will continue to arise. The OTRS policy pages must be revised to indicate that all changes other than those that are specifically stated to be based on private information are subject entirely to the normal editorial processes. Complaints about OTRS agents overstepping their authority or making errors should probably normally be handled within OTRS by an appropriate procedure , but there remains a right of anyone to deal with them directly on-wiki as for any other actions or any other editor. The current special dispute resolution procedure is only indicated for ones that are specifically stated to be based on confidential but verified communications,and it must be so indicated.
(8) Assurances that this is all being dealt will be justified when they have been dealt with. The responsibility for training and supervising OTRS is the joint responsibility of the Foundation and the community. The Foundation does have the responsibility to grant or withhold OTRS access, as for everything requiring access to identifying information; I assume that they would not refuse an on-wiki request that such access be removed, but the community does retain the power to block anyone. Legitimate power in a complex organization is based on a systems of balancing and overlapping authority.
β€” Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk β€’ contribs) 04:38, 30 September 2014
That is a very wise analysis. Thanks! To resolve this situation, we need to come up with some wording and specific revisions. Let's start working on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Having followed this discussion since its inception, I fully concur with DGG's analysis of what needs to be done, especially re the clear mis-use of "confidentiality" claims to stifle discussion, when no confidentiality is involved as was the case here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should also make it clear that OTRS agents are not editors on the same level as functionaries, checkusers, Arbcom, or WMF staff making legal action edits. Finally, this issue is a lot more prevalent than people think. This was a particularly egregious example which finally prompted a "full and frank" discussion. However, when most editors (including me), see OTRS edit summaries like the ones used here pop up on their watchlist, they simply "obey" even if they don't agree with the edit, or often don't even bother to check the edit itself. That is why so few show up at dispute resolution, and why from now on I'm going to carefully check each and every OTRS flagged edit that shows up on my watchlist. Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of piling on, I'd also like to thank DGG for answering questions on this issue at multiple locations, and for this extraordinarily thorough analysis. Hopefully things will indeed move forward both in terms of how OTRS agents understand and approach these matters, and how the community scrutinises and reacts to them. As Voceditenore says above, often it takes a particularly glaring example for an underlying issue to be exposed. We now have the power to move towards a situation where this problem is eliminated. Begoon talk 07:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


We need a section with two subsections which clearly describe the delimitations of the OTRS system. There should be two lists (not prose):

A. What OTRS volunteers can do for you
  1. If you don't understand the editing process and need help, they can give you pointers.
  2. They will attempt to address any privacy concerns you may have.
  3. If you feel that you or your organization have been libeled, they will see if anything needs to be done and can be done. They will follow the normal manner of dealing with information covered by our Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.
  4. They will ask you to provide any reliable sources which can be used to back up and justify any changes. Your word alone is what we call "original research" and cannot be used to justify changing any content.
  5. They will advise you about not making legal threats or personal attacks, and that getting too aggressive, whether here at Wikipedia or in the real world, can create a Streisand effect. Tread lightly and be patient.
  6. More suggestions.....
B. What OTRS volunteers will not do for you
  1. Volunteers have no more rights than any other Wikipedia editor, so they cannot be used to strong arm other editors. They cannot force other editors to do anything, and they will discuss the matter with other editors. This is a process of give and take, and patience is required.
  2. The OTRS system is not a means to circumvent normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Volunteers will use the normal collaborative editing processes while dealing with your request.
  3. Volunteers will not violate any policies for you.
  4. You may have a conflict of interest (COI), and thus your concerns will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone else who has a COI. Volunteers will not automatically take your side, and they will never force your preferred version or content into an article, nor will they delete negative content which is properly sourced.
  5. More suggestions.....

That section (possibly as a template) should be placed on at least these two places:

Please feel free to suggest other points and alternate wordings. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this. I do wonder, though, if this is the best place any more, or it's now time to move from this board to an OTRS specific location, or a "Pump", in which case the discussion should be an RFC, widely advertised - with maybe a watchlist notification, even, since it is potentially of wide community interest. Begoon talk 17:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Right now, more people are watching here and there has been wider input, but making it an RfC would be good. The OTS talk pages seem to get defensive responses (and edit summaries which want to shut down the discussion!) from the few people who are active there, so we need very wide responses from the whole community. So far we've been getting responses here by people who understand the problems and controversy related to this latest incident. We need to keep that history in focus wherever the RfC is held. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a thing for WP:VPP then. This discussion and the one at the Fringe Noticeboard should be linked and included. It can always be brought back here if that fails. Just seems like the best way forward right now. Begoon talk 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I did this: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#OTRS. Hopefully it can progress from there. Begoon talk 00:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And I made some small changes in wording, and added several additional points. I think we should continue there, not here. If we're going to work on devising a text, it has to be at a single place. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus[edit]

(For reference, the first paragraph below mostly discusses article content as a necessary background to what I see as inappropriate user behaviour. Please do not misunderstand me as asking for content input on the article talk page. Please also do not take me as asking for sanctions against Mmeijieri; the latter user is also being disruptive, but has not made any personal attacks against me or -- it appears -- other users.)

Fearofreprisal (talk Β· contribs) has been completely devoted to this one page for the last month: he doesn't seem to have any solid ideas for improving the page, but has been posting inane arguments that seem to be promoting the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. It's extremely hard to tell. He and Mmeijeri (talk Β· contribs) in particular seem to be obsessed with arguments like "New Testament scholars are not historians" and "lots of legitimate historians have criticized the attempts of Christian apologists to construct 'historical Jesus' models that are in fact theological in nature". They place an arbitrary distinction between "New Testament scholars" and "historians", where even though a lot of the former are not historians per se they have rejected out-of-hand the claim by a highly-reputable historian that virtually all historians agree with New Testament scholars on this point. Can anyone look at this edit and not think Fearofreprisal is violating WP:POINT? Taking quotations from legitimate historians out of context, in order to imply that they adhere to a fringe theory discussed in the article, is extremely inappropriate, and at least one is on record as being bothered by being misquoted in this way. Once said historian wrote a 300-page book discrediting the fringe theory, and since then most of his quotes have been removed. Quotes about the historical reliability of from other scholars who have not openly complained about being misquoted are still in the article on the subject of whether or not Jesus existed. It's extremely difficult to discuss these points with Fearofreprisal in particular, since he seems to be more interested in getting a rise out of his "opponents" than in building an encyclopedia article.

But then he took it over the top by starting a new thread about me on the article talk page.[188]

I think the majority of users involved in the historicity article (and related discussions) over the last month would agree with me that FoP has been disruptive. I frankly don't care if he is allowed to continue to edit the article in the short term. But I'd like to see some reprisal for deliberately trying to intimidate me by insinuating bad faith on my part for a username change that took place two years ago...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 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”˜NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

I agree that FoR is being needlessly combative, but the article does suffer from major POV issues and Hijiri himself has been very unconstructive in resolving them. He has also been overly eager to run off to various noticeboards at the slightest provocation / disagreement. I might add that I'm annoyed that my good-faith attempts to address major and long-standing POV issues that have been pointed out by many, many Wikipedians in the past are now being brought up by Hijiri as worthy of sanctions. I have received several thank-you's for my contributions to the debate and I think those who read my contributions will see that I've always been constructive and willing to to accommodate the concerns of others.
I don't know why he brings up the fact that researchers who criticise the methodological soundness and lack of objectivity of Historical Jesus research do generally agree Jesus exists. That's certainly true, and if that needs to be made even more explicit than it is right now then I'm all for it, but it's not the point of bringing up the criticism. I even explicitly added the statement that historians do not take the competing Christ Myth Theory seriously.
The point of the criticism section is that the opinion of HJ scholars should not be presented in Wikipedia voice and that biblical scholars should not be misrepresented as historians. I don't understand why Hijiri thinks the distinction is artificial. At first sight it seems obvious they are two different though possibly related disciplines. Biblical scholarship as a whole certainly isn't a subdiscipline of history, it has equally strong or stronger links with semitic studies, theology, archaeology and perhaps other fields. But sometimes things that seem obviously true turn out to be subtly false, so it's possible that the more specific subfield of HJ research is seen as a subfield of history too by historians. In that case we'd need a reliable source to tell us that. I have not seen such a source, and in fact we do have many sources (cited in the article) who explicitly deny it, including prominent biblical scholars involved with HJ research and a (modern) historian who has published a biography of Jesus.
I do think the criticism section is needlessly lengthy and duplicative with what is said in the HJ article, and I have said so before on the article Talk page. However, we've already had discussions about whether we need to have a separate Historicity of Jesus page at all, in addition to the HJ and CMT pages. At one point a lot of material was moved to these other two pages. That discussion can continue after or even in parallel with the POV issue, which does seem more pressing.
IMO the solution is what we always do when dealing with POV issues, namely to state the various opinions from a neutral point of view, taking care to give each view its due attention, not more and not less. In the interaction between scholarly proponents of the competing views various accusations have been made back and forth about possible religious or antireligious bias, lack of historical methodological soundness of methods, lack of scholarly credentials in general, lack of knowledge of Aramaic and possibly others. Accordingly, the article tries to mention any relevant background (credentials, religious / antireligious affiliation) whenever a scholar is first named to help the reader identify possible sources of bias / lack of scholarly quality. In addition I think it would be helpful if we added a paragraph that explains the distinction between theology and religious studies, since it appears to be a common source of confusion.
In closing, I urge Hijiri to be more constructive, and if he isn't, I hope his frequent unjustified appeals to various noticeboards will WP:BOOMERANG on him. It would be well-deserved. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:55, 27 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”˜Off-topic discussion ends here.

I think we should reconsider seeking arbitration mediation, since all these unproductive trips to the administrators noticeboard don't help. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My lack of involvement for a while (aside from spending a few weeks sorting my books) has a great deal to do with FearOfReprisal, who has honestly just worn me down. As I've (more or less) said before: