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

Noticeboard archives


IBAN violation by Catflap08[edit]

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[1][2] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the statement he made " I`d rather not comment too much on Hijiri`s comments or edits as I personally find them to be problematic." Nowhere in there is a statement about specific edits. As to your thoughts on the 50 to 100 edits, you do realize that if there is no limit in the past, that you are going to have to look at every edit ever made before changing anything to make sure your edit does not revert something he did right? So if he changed a few words here or there, your going to have to check if a word you want change was changed by him in the entire history of the article. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
He was answering another user's (User:Snow Rise's) query about the specific edits he would later revert. He referred to these as "Hijiri's edits". What is the question here? Additionally, Catflap does not need to go back and look at every single edit to know that the edit he is specifically going out of his way to revert is mine. I do not need to be concerned about being accused of violating the IBAN in the same way because (as much as it would benefit the project as a whole) I am not interested in going around tracking down Catflap's old edits and reverting them. And in this case the edits aren't even that old! Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... hello? Feels like I'm shouting into an echo chamber here. User:Sturmgewehr88 pointed out to Catflap on the article talk page that his edits constitute IBAN violations and User:Black Kite agreed but asked for more objective input. So far the only two other users who have weighed in have either (a) apparently not recognized that Catflap went back through my edits to the article in order to revert specific portions of them and reinsert the exact text that was there previously (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident) or (b) failed to recognize that Catflap specifically acknowledged that the edits he was reverting were made by me before he reverted them, and was also directly reminded that they were mine afterward, before re-reverting them (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident).

Anyone else wanna weigh in? Maybe warn or block Catflap? Revert to the better version of the article before the IBAN-violating/OR-infested edits? If this thread gets archived with no result I'm just going to have to un-archive or reopen it, so...

Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Umm, no, you're not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. You have brought something here that you felt was an incident requiring community (in general) and administrator (in particular) attention. During the three days since there has been all sorts of activity on this board, so you can be sure that administrators and editors within the community have looked over your issue and have, fairly clearly, decided that currently it does not warrant their attention. You may not be happy with that decision by the community; it may be a poor outcome for you; it may even be a poor outcome for the community; none of those points, however, mean that you "have to un-archive or reopen it". That would, in mine opinion, be close to a disruptive action, ignoring the consensus that you don't agree with.
I suggest you scrupulously adhere to the IBAN, work with others in the community to improve the article and as many others of the two million (or whatever it is now that there are) that you feel like and wait. If this Catflap is as evil and Machiavellian as you seem to think, we'll discover it soon enough; if not, yay! Cheers, LindsayHello 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:LindsayH: Please read the note at the top: I did not post anything here three days ago. I posted this thread on the much less active WP:AN (on the specific advice of an admin). In several days of the thread being open there was not a single response (presumably because that page is not as active as this one); I posted more as Catflap continued violating the IBAN again and again. After several days, confused, I asked what had happened and if I had misplaced the thread, and apparently I had. Another user moved it here for me, but I suspect that by then it had already passed the IDHT threshold. That, presumably, is what confused both BMK and AlbinoFerret, and AlbinoFerret's further questioning and my answering pushed this thread even further into IDHT territory. So far one admin has unambiguously stated that they believe the IBAN was violated and some others have found holes in my complaint that I have readily filled for them. Prematurely-archived threads do not count as "consensus to do nothing", and de-archiving or reopening them is quite common practice. Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted); the thread was prematurely archived, so I posted on the talk page of one of the admins who had posted and they de-archived it for me.
I would be happy to continue to comply by the mutual IBAN -- I have been doing so for close to a month now. But by letting this direct reverting of my edits fly you are now telling me that you think the IBAN is not mutual, because Catflap08 is allowed directly revert my edits and I am apparently still not allowed revert his. It's not "Machiavellian", though -- Catflap has been quite flagrant about his reverting my edits, even continuing to do so after being told by a third party to stop. I suspect what happened was that two weeks into the IBAN he showed up and joined a talk page discussion I had started, and evaded sanctions for that, which emboldened him do go and directly revert my edits.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I was "confused" about anything, as I read both AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I can echo your post BMK, I am not confused and also watch AN/I and AN. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh geez, who could have ever predicted this? I'll get to agreeing adamantly with those who have already responded here with regard to how inappropriately Hijiri approaches these situations and to detailing how the "boy who cried wolf" effect might explain, at least in part, why he is not getting the response he is seeking. But let's start by recognizing another fact: the reignition of this drama represents a failure on the part of those of us who took part in the last discussion. This IBAN was never going to work; both editors work in overlapping and fairly niche areas with little buffer between them and neither showed the least suggestion of backing down from any of the content disputes between them that were the proximal cause of the ANI discussion that lead to the IBAN. Add into that battleground attitudes and personalization (to some extent two way but increasingly represented by the inability of one party to just let things go) and its clear this approach was nothing a but guarantee to rubber-band this issue back at the noticeboards in short order. It's pretty silly to recommend as a resolution to an issue that the two incolved editors simply disengage from one-another when the matter in question was that they could not be disengaged. The truth is, after years of watching it in operation, I'm increasingly dubious that an IBAN ever does anything but prolong disruption connected to grudges between editors, but it certainly needs to stop being used in cases like this where the deeper issues are not addressed first.
Now, as to your complaints, Hijiri, I can form that what was suggested to you by others here is true with regard to at least one would-be contributor; I just couldn't see this thread or the matters you raised as urgent, or even necessarily and community oversight, being all to familiar with the context and particulars of your feud. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors saw the names involved and just skipped over it, and I certainly wouldn't blame them. As it happens, I saw both new threads well before you pinged me, and was about to reply several times before being distracted by other issues (on-wiki and off) that undeniably warranted the attention more. It's not the first time you've pinged me into this feud and it's surprising each time because I've been increasingly clear with each iteration of the battle that I view your behaviours to generally be more problematic and disruptive than those of Catflap, especially with regard to seeking out the fight, but at this point I take these actions as part and parcel of your WP:IDHT way of selectively reading what others have tried to tell you about this contest of wills. I've seen so much of it with regard to how your view (and represent) the comments of others who have tried to separate you two that when I see you say something like "Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted)" I don't for a second suspect that I am getting the full story there. Because I have seen you distort the positions of other commenting parties before (my own included) to suggest thorough support for yourself where it did not really exist or was limited to just a minor point. And for the record, I'm not even saying that you're lying; in most of these cases, you seem to genuinely believe the spin that you put on these events and the perspectives of those involved, which is part of what is making this ongoing battle such a particularly intractable mess.
Whether Catflap pushed the edges of the IBAN with any edit, I don't know, though I do know that the particular edits I looked at did not violate it outright. Contrary to your assumption, the IBAN does not guarantee that he can not edit that page in a direction that is contrary to your vision for it, nor is the reverse Otherwise IBANs could be gamed to try to force preferred version. All of which is exactly why this IBAN was such a foolish notion in this case, because clearly neither of you wanted to give way on this article and related content, so it was inevitable that you would be lobbing broadsides at eachother in one manner or another. For this reason I'm going to propose that the IBAN be dissolved, that we ask you two gentlemen one last time to try to find a reasonable compromise path forward and, if you fail and the issue becomes disruptive between the two of you, we look at which of the two of you is more deserving of a page or topic ban regarding this subject the two of you cannot let go. Whether or not I am successful in convincing others to follow that approach though, I highly recommend that you let this issue go for now, before you get smacked with the biggest WP:BOOMERANG this side of the Blue Mountains. Because the situation doesn't even warrant discussion of whether you or anyone thinks Catflap is Machiavellian; he wouldn't nearly need to be when all he has to do is what he's doing now -- hang back, say absolutely nothing and let you torpedo yourself. But look on the bright side here, you've got at least one detailed response now. Snow let's rap 04:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, all but one user (the only admin, and the only one who didn't previously express support for Catflap's position, I might add) seems to here be ignoring the fact that I presented specific evidence that Catflap reverted my edits after explicitly acknowledging that they were my edits. It has nothing to do with "editing the article away from ny preferred vision". The fact that a single previous AN thread (not two) got archived with no result after one user agreed that Catflap had violated the IBAN and one disagreed is not evidence that I have been "crying wolf"; if anything, it is evidence that the latest, more serious violation should be taken more seriously. Why is Catflap allowed revert my edits but not I his? Can someone please explain to me how this IBAN is mutual if one of the parties is refusing to abide by it? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
An IBAN does not just mean that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward. Even if that were the case, it's clear (as could be seen at the time) that neither of you were really going to back down on this issue. Those are two of several reasons why it was ill-advised to have instituted an IBAN without those issues first being resolved and it locked us with certainty into a new thread AN thread in short order. As to the "crying wolf" comment, you seem to have misread it -- I was referencing your past battleground behaviour in these matters as the reason why you were not getting the overwhelming flood of interest in this drama you clearly think it deserves. Despite the repeated direct efforts of (and warnings from) both an admin ([3][4]) and the community broadly about following Catflap from page to page looking to re-engage with him and other generally tendentious, combative, and disruptive behaviours, you persisted well past any sense -- and often while citing the "shared" perspectives of other editors who were themselves surprised to learn of their unwavering support for you. Frankly, you more than earned the block Silk Tork had implied was forthcoming if you didn't back off, and if it had been dolled out, likely we'd never have gotten as far as the poorly-considered IBAN.
Look, I'm not even sure how much I disagree with you that Catflap violated at least the spirit of the IBAN and should be called out for it. But these are your chickens come home to roost, my friend. You courted sanction and then only avoided a block for continuing down the path you were on (which you surely would have, as you always have on this issue and with regard to this "opponent") because we instead got steered into this IBAN which was certain to impose itself on the rest of us as soon as you two (inevitably) refused to edit in collaborative fashion on one of the issues neither of you can just let go of. And then you want to cry foul when enough editors don't flock to this nonsense and immediately agree that he should be blocked? Well, I can only say that I think you need to look at this situation again from the perspective of the community volunteers here and in the context of your past behaviour. Snow let's rap 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm... I don't think "an IBAN just means that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward": I think that WP:IBAN means what it says, that Catflap08 is "not permitted to ... undo [my] edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". I provided clear and concise evidence that several of my edits (specifically, removing the Stone article as a reference for a piece of information she actually contradicts and stating in the text that Miyazawa Kenji rejected the group's nationalism) were directly undone by Catflap (here and here, respectively). The other edits are all problematic in their own ways, for reasons I painstakingly explained to Catflap on the talk page months ago, and completely undermine my earlier hard work on the article (hard work which you earlier praised and for which Catflap earlier expressed a dislike), but those problems are secondary to the direct reverts. So far every user who has checked these diffs has acknowledged that they are reverts and constitute an IBAN violation by Catflap. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright then. Catflap08, apparently you violated the iBan between you and Hijiri. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to go into this circular argument with you for a third time. Several community members here have already explained why the IBAN can't just be a rubber stamp on the last version of an article put forth in a dispute before an IBAN, and I explained that is exactly why the IBAN should not have been insittuted in the first place and have suggested a path forward to resolving that conflict of principles (which you have since !voted in favour of). But even if we take it for granted that Catflap violated the IBAN, you are still missing the larger picture that others have tried at length to impart to you. Because you can argue (and even be completely right about) the technicalities of a particular action taken by another contributor you are in conflict with, but if you bring the matter to AN/ANI, the community members here are going to look at the whole context of the dispute, consider how the IBAN came into effect and why it was deemed necessary and finally ask whether the contributions of either of you are presently worth the disruption you create between you.
Frankly, the truth is that you owe Catflap a huge debt of gratitude for proposing the IBAN. Because without it, you would certainly have been blocked for blatantly ignoring the warnings of an admin (and the recommendation of the community broadly in multiple spaces) to back away from him. If all he wanted was truly to win that content dispute, then he went about it in about the worst way possible, since all he had to do was wait for you to recieve your well-earned block, revert you, and then have the procedural high-ground once/if you were unblocked. Instead, he pushed for an IBAN, seeming to genuinely want to just be through with you. And yeah, you know what, having made that decision and set us down that path, he should have lived with the consequences and not pushed for his version in that article again, if it meant undercutting your edits. And the editors here will probably find cause to see disruption in those actions. But his poor behaviour does not absolve you of your past disruption and WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook that helped set all of this in motion, especially if you are going to keep insisting we put this situation under a microscope...
You keep re-presenting the technicalities of Catflaps edits and whether the constitute reversion, putting up the same evidence again and again and taking any lack of resulting and immediate support for you as evidence that other editors here are either "confused" about these points or that they just aren't looking closely enough. But I assure you, a greater number of us have looked through the edits you keep reposting than you seem to think. Actually, it was while looking through those edits that something occurred to me, something concerning the fact that that you now have explicitly stated that you think it is unacceptable for Catflap to revert your edits on articles with content contested between the two of you. I remembered how you opposed the IBAN at first but then suddenly embraced it, and I can't now help but suspect that the reason is that you recognized that (at least by your own interpretation of the rules) that your version of the disputed content would be the one that would exist in perpetuum. So it seems to me that you believed in the IBAN to the extent that it protected your edits, but you didn't believe in the overall goal it was meant to serve (reducing disruption) enough to abide by the spirit of the community decision and just let this one go past.
But now we have an opportunity to take things in a different direction. If we get a consensus to dissolve the IBAN, and if both you and Catflap still view me as neutral in your content dispute, I will volunteer some time on that talk page to provide a third opinion and hopefully try to bridge the differences of perspective between you two over the sources, to find a compromise solution that is also consistent with policy. If you don't like me in that role, then I recommend WP:DRN, or you could try another RfC. But whatever you do, you're going to have to find a radically different way to approach one-another in the spaces you share in common. Because the only sanctions we have left are blocks and article/topic bans, which I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to consider next time these issues come back here and one or both of you has not been mindful of the amount of rope you have left. And aside from the possible consequences of failing to finally get along and collaborate, it's worth noting that it is just so much easier to reach a middle ground solution that to conduct a months-long campaign of policy battles that draw in and consume the editorial/project energy of your fellow contributors. And yet in addition to being easier, the collaborative approach is also vastly more rewarding.
Please consider what I am saying to you. Having taken an absurd number of paragraphs to make one last effort at making these points explicit, and to draw a distinction between A) what you view as unimpeachable evidence that Catflap is in the wrong in this one instance and B) the whole context that the community will consider when trying to decide what is the most practical and realistic way to stop this disruption once and for all, I know have exceeded the amount of time I was determined not to expend here by a factor of about twenty. But we can all consider our energy well-spent if, when the IBAN is dissolved (if indeed it is), both sides come to the table prepared to compromise and embrace the kind of collaborative approach that serves the encyclopedia best. You two are not meant to be opponents -- you're partners in a project here, and partners of the rest of us, as well. Keep that in mind and you will hopefully never have to worry about the word "ban" coming up in the course of your editorial work again. Snow let's rap 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment uninvolved non-admin here. We as a community put this iBan in place, whatever its merits or costs. If we wish to dissolve it and try another solution fine but it was in place. I'm also ignoring how things have been reported and tones taken. The brute facts are Catflap knew there was an IBAN in place and it is pretty clear Catflap violated it while it was in place. As such not restricting catflap, however temporarily (I would suggest a broad tBan for a fortnight) for violating his IBAN just weakens any and all existing IBANs. SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: dissolve IBAN, find a more realistic solution to this conflict[edit]

See my last posting in this thread (as well as the previous comments diffed at its beginning) to see exactly why an IBAN can accomplish nothing here except to recycle this feud through the noticeboards endlessly. Neither editor has every voiced any interest in letting go of the content issues which brought about the acrimony between them and there is insufficient third party oversight (or even involvement) in the affected pages to keep them from stumbling over eachother's edits and directly butting heads immediately. This was an ill-thought-out community solution (to which I admittedly took part, despite reservations) that needs to be recognized as untenable here, given the circumstances and attitudes of the involved parties. As a first step to finding an actual solution to this conflict, I think the IBAN needs to be dissolved. After that, the best (if still quite underwhelming) suggestion I can give on the next course of action would be to give basic dispute resolution processes one more try. I believe WP:DRN has not yet been explored, for example. If uncivil, non-collaborative, and disruptive behaviours persists, one or both editors should be page/topic banned from the relevant articles/subjects. Snow let's rap 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Megasupport (as nom) Snow let's rap 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support First off, @Snow Rise: there is no evidence that I am trying to continue the underlying content dispute; I just don't a user with whom I am mutually IBANned reverting my edits. The only reason I initially agreed to the IBAN was because no one ever told me how hard it was to report IBAN violations. I can choose to assume that if I reverted a bunch of Catflap's edits and he reported me he would het just as poor a hearing as I have. But I have no interest in reverting Catflap's edits. So as is this is a de facto one-way IBAN, which no one agreed to.
I would, though, like to hear back from @Sturmgewehr88: and @Black Kite: first, since they appear to have taken the time to go through all the diffs and recognized that Catflap reverted me, not the other way round.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I honestly think Catflap violated the IBAN when he manually reverted Hijiri88's edits. If he's not going to face any consequences, then the IBAN seems pointless. The IBAN should be lifted and both editors given WP:ROPE awaiting further disruption, at which point TBANs will be in order. As an aside, @Snow Rise: I've heard of "strongest support possible" but "megasupport" is a new one :) ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I did just mean it as a one-off effort to combine humor, exasperation, and emphasis, but now I'm thinking it could be a thing; it could certainly get some mileage in this space! ;) Snow let's rap 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Removal of the IBAN, and may I suggest a path forward, instead placing them both under a 1RR rule. That should end edit warring at least. AlbinoFerret 07:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
That's the best idea I've seen since this discussion began, AF. Of course, it requires they have a third party editing the page, since otherwise they will each really only be able to add content to the page -- meaning that with an inability to remove content there is a risk of it getting glutted with large amounts of often contradictory information as each party tries to drown out the other's message. But then, my impression is that these two could use some outside perspective and a buffer for the present time anyway. Snow let's rap 08:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes they will need an outside editor, one who has some idea of the topic other than a quick read (like me). Should we start a section on it? AlbinoFerret 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm... could I ask if either of you know what exactly the "underlying content dispute" between me and Catflap actually is? Because as far as I am aware, the dispute is solely about whether a source should be attached to a statement it doesn't directly support; not a content dispute, but an issue of one user simply not understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. Before asserting that both Catflap and I (rather than just one of us) are incapable of talk-page discussion without an intermediary some recognition of this point would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, though, I'm not opposed to an intermediary. @Shii: would be great: he knows a lot about Japanese religion, is diligent with sourcing problems, and he and I have rarely agreed about stuff in the past, so there would likely be no cause to call him biased (contrary to popular opinion, I don't follow Catflap around, so I don't know if they have any kind of history of interaction, though). Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with both Catflap and Hijiri and consider them both valuable to the project, although that hardly means I agree with them a lot. I also hate IBANs and would happily mediate if some kind of arbitration will take place. But I'm not going to be online 24/7 these days. Shii (tock) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral I am not willing to deal with editors who use insulting language (no matter if they strike it afterwards or not), (to my mind) bad faith edits on articles I concentrate on, childlike comments within their edits on articles about my home. I do hear that the ANI is an IBAN free zone. I also do not want to deal with editors who wish that the “opponent” to be blocked from en.Wikipedia. If an IBAN is that easily lifted then it will speak for itself. I would also welcome if admins do have a clue on the matters they get involved in and decide on.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC) If an editor finds it to be necessary to underline his/her edits with swear words and insults (strike or not) on a regular basis I do not find it to be a need to seek any consensus but to rather ignore such an individual. And for the record I am not spending my time here to be called names – not having that, not in real life nor in here. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, you had a golden ticket to keep Hijiri out of your life in the form of the IBAN (which we should obviously have never considered granting you, given your obvious lack of intention to avoid the other party). You chose to violate the sanction and the reason we are now prepared to do away with it is because it is never going to work (and never could have) if you two were not prepared to abide by it. And let's be clear, you are the party which violated it, not Hijiri. You knew (or certainly should have known) that this would cause him to fly here immediately to impose this onerous issue on the community at large once again, just weeks after we last discussed it. And frankly, the only reason you haven't been blocked already for this violation is that the editors here recognized Hijiri's own long-standing contributions to this feud. But for you complain about the weakness of our dedication to an IBAN which is causing problems rather than solving them is incredibly obtuse, since the only alternative was that follow protocol and block you for the violation immediately. Regardless, you cannot continue to contribute on the contested articles unless you are willing to collaborate with all parties there, including Hijiri.
Frankly, I've seen enough of the approaches of both you and Hijiri to this problem, and of your mutual lack of will to reach for a collaborative approach that might keep us from having to recycle this discussion endlessly. I was prepared to propose the only solution that now seems plausible to me, given the intractability and behavioural issues of both of you on the articles you contest between you, namely that you both be page banned from both Kokuchūkai and Kenji Miyazawa. But now I find that proposal awkward and ill-suited, since Hijiri has said he would be willing to consider mediation and a third (apparently neutral) editor who has worked with you both has agreed to try to facilitate that attempt. I have a hard time proposing that Hijiri be page banned before that effort, since there was a specific call for him to do so. But if you refuse to mediate, and insist continuing to edit war in violation of an IBAN you asked for, then maybe the solution is to page ban just you. Or page ban one of each of you from each of the two articles in question. In any event, if you won't come to table, I'm afraid one of these options will have to be implemented, since you cannot just refuse to work with other editors on an article you wish to remain active on. Snow let's rap 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with the last sentence especially. Shii (tock) 02:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Could you explain what you mean whwn you say I have been unwilling to edit collaboratively on those two articles? On the Kokuchukai article, I have been struggling for months to try to figure out what Catflap's problem with my edits is, so I could work to accommodate him and edit collaboratively, and have been met with nothing but misquoting of sources and accusations of personal attacks and tendentious editing.
As for the Kenji article -- clearly you have not even looked at that talk page or thr edit history of the article. Just look at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/redraft to see me, User:Nishidani and User:Icuc2 (two users with whom I rarely agree all that much when it comes to article content) to fix the problems that have plagued the article for years.
I would ask that you kindly refrain from any further assertions that I have trouble editing collaboratively, especially since further down this pahe you are currently still supporting a page ban against me proposed by a user who does refuse to edit collaboratively.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Woah. Just realized my above comment sounds unusually petty/grouchy given that two users have finally offered to help put this problem to rest and I finally got recognition that the IBAN was violated and not by me. I had not read SR's comment as closely as perhaps I might have, and I was perhaps also frustrated by the still bubbling-up shitstorm downstairs (hopefully the Wikipedia equivalent of Mack from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be around to talk some sense into that debate soon...). Anyway, I apologize for the above gruffness. I am deeply appreciative of finally getting recognition that I was not the one violating the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Snow Rise, correct me if I am wrong and DO NOT take this personal, but I find it hard to see that any sort of consensus has been made here. I am unwilling to deal with an individual who seems to find no other way to underline his case without an abusive language and to go hysteric. I have found valuable references to have been deleted and decided to reinsert them into the article in question. Other editors seem to have meanwhile taken up the job to bring the article up to agreed standards - thanks for that. A job that I would have liked to have seen being done by admins. I have been called names in this process just because I hinted and referenced the somewhat dubious religious/political background of some editor’s favourite poet. The editor in question then decided to edit the article which I created (and delete references) on the poets religious affiliation. In due process I have been called names by the editor in question, I have been insulted, smearing comments about me while editing an article on my home town and this is a reoccurring pattern by the editor in question on other issues even without me being involved. As soon as the ice gets thin he calls for his cronies including Sturmgewehr88 (being banned from a number Wikipedias for obvious reasons – in many European countries just like Germany the number 88 is a code for a fascist background – based on edits). So go ahead IBAN, TBAN or block me from en.Wikipedia if you like. I did my utmost best to supply Information on Nichiren Buddhism in a non-partisan way, in doing so it might hurt some faithful individuals and this involves a conflict. For some admins there is a piece of advice – get involved on issues you are familiar with otherwise stay out. There is no need to show me the exit sign anymore as the project seems to be preoccupied with many issues but referenced facts – I cannot and am unwilling to deal with some editors mental issues. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone find it concerning that despite posting the above "neutral opposition" (for want of a better term) and despite the IBAN not being officially dissolved yet, Catflap08 requested further down this page that I be "topic-banned" from ... Japan-related articles, I guess, which for me is the same as a siteban. Is this appropriate behaviour? Does anyone seriously think Catflap08 is genuinely willing to engage in constructive discussion, even with a mediator? Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Catflap08: first of all, I'm not banned from anything, I'm blocked due to an assumption of bad faith which you also assume. "Based on edits" is completely contradicting, as my edits are why I'm not blocked on enWP and why I shouldn't be blocked anywhere else. 88 might be a "secret code" in Central Europe, but in East Asia (my main editing area) the people are either clueless or care nothing about it. Starting a problem where none exists is disruptive. I had already admited that challenging some of your edits to Kokuchūkai was wrong, but you turning around and basically calling me a Facist for my mistake is distasteful. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (signing to delay archiving since this thread has an active close request via WP:ANRFC.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rather than giving up on the IBAN I'd like to see it enforced. The entire point of this sort of restriction is that when its violated, violaters have further rights removed so they learn not to violate. Giving up at the first hurdle is pointless. SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose SPACKlick has summed it up very nicely. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: @Blackmane: Yes, but who's going to enforce the IBAN? I only accepted the IBAN in the first place because I assumed that if Catflap08 violated the IBAN someone would either warn or block him. He violated the IBAN on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa, I posted on AN requesting some form of enforcement, I suffered a huge fustercluck and several personal attacks from a friend of Catflap08's. Then he more blatantly violated the IBAN on Kokuchūkai, and I was ultimately (after another fustercluck) able to convince an admin to tell Catflap08 to play nice. Catflap08 responded to that by showing up here and calling me and User:Sturmgewehr88 neo-fascists based on the fact that we were born in 1988 and randomly requesting that I be TBANned from every article I've ever edited. I don't see why I should endure personal attacks and unending ANI fusterclucks just because at one point some months ago I didn't know how hard it was to enforce an IBAN. Clearly this IBAN is not having the effect it is meant to: if you want to petition the admin corps to indefinitely block Catflap08 for the battleground and CIR behaviour he demonstrated both before and after the IBAN I will support it, but otherwise how do you expect me to defend my contributions from a user who is revenge-reverting them despite the IBAN? Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If there is a clear violation drop a note on my talk page. The same offer goes out to anyone in the same position. Chillum 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice requested[edit]

No More Mr Nice Guy Notified of this discussion.

No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from participation in WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions after he complained I was engaged in ‘Jew baiting’ in July 2013. He withdrew, apparently in protest at the negative verdict for his claim, from active editing of wikipedia, while over the intervening years, documenting that wikipedia is anti-Semitic on his original homepage. The evidence was mounted exclusively by using several diffs from my work, some of which had been analysed and dismissed in his original complaint.

here i.e., User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia To illustrate the thesis, there is a section called Wikipedia specific. Its evidence lists

He occasionally dropped notes on editors’ talk pages alluding to me in a way that suggested the same message. here, for example

Now that he is back editing, and that is a good thing, and we have disagreements, which are normal, I think this WP:AGF issue directed my way requires some clarification, especially since it is alluded to again here where No More Mr Good Guy was responding to the statement I made here. His disavowel:'Apropos my user page, which was not about you but about Wikipedia and Western society in general', is disingenuous in the extreme, since the evidence for 'anti-Semitism on Wikipedia' there is culled only by a selective use and distorted reading of some of my edits. Advice either way (to me) (to him) would be appreciated so that an atmosphere of less suspicion can prevail, and the kind of exasperatingly perplexing argumentation over trivia, easily resolved by either party (by me orby him), of the kind you find here, may be avoided.

This is not a request for sanctions, which do not apply to the problem. I have no objection to any editor privately entertaining a conviction I am an anti-Semite. I simply think alluding to this personal belief while engaging with me is not conducive to collaborative editing because it tends to make for inordinately long controversies when the issues are simple.

I would also request editors involved in the area not to add their opinions or takes sides, but allow this to be examined by impartial outside editors. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what action you are looking for from admins here. A strongly worded warning on his talk page? The deletion of that user page whose examples of anti-Semitism consist of your edits? Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd simply like editors to assess the evidence, to tell me if it is acceptable to allude to a fellow editor as an anti-Semite, or as a 'symptom' of anti-Semitism, as he has twice this year. If it is acceptable, fine. If it is not, well, a word NMMGG's way, would be appropriate. By the way 'whose examples' should be 'whose putative examples', I think.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to delete that page per a textbook case of WP:POLEMIC (and it's bordering on a G10 speedy as well). Does anyone disagree? Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to delete something from my userspace for being polemic, I request you look at Nishidani's userspace as well. I made that page under the assumption it was allowed, partially based on this deletion request of Nishidani's page. If this sort of thing is not allowed for anyone, fine. Otherwise there needs to be some consistency. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference being, I would suggest, is that Nishidani's talkpage in the above MfD did not, as far as I can see, cast any aspersions about other editors. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't document a problem with Wikipedia without linking to diffs. The only thing there that I suppose could be considered as casting aspersions might be me pointing out his laughable attempt of using an anti-semite to explain what anti-semitism is or isn't. I'll remove that if there's consensus it's a problem. But otherwise these are diffs illustrating what I think is a serious systemic problem with Wikipedia and Western society in general. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The bottom line is, if you're going to document something titled "Anti-Semitism and Wikipedia" by using a particular user's edits, then it follows that you are effectively accusing them of being an anti-semite. There is plenty of obvious anti-semitism at Wikipedia which you could quite easily have used instead, but you've chosen to use one person's edits which don't fall into that "obvious" category, and hence you're breaching NPA. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the page? The whole point is that Western cultures know how to deal with someone who sprays a swastika on a synagogue, but seem to be unable to deal with anti-semitism when it's mixed up with anti-Zionism. And that moreover, when someone complains about such things they are at best not taken seriously and at worse punished for complaining, thus making it unlikely that others will complain.
I can change the title of the page if that helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to correct some inaccuracies in Nishidani's complaint.
The AE complaint Nishidani links to was dismissed out of hand in less than 24 hours by a single admin with no discussion for, basically, lack of AGF. It is very unusual for AE complaints to be closed that fast, particularly if made by an editor with a completely clean record like I had.
As I'm sure you can imagine, when someone makes a complaint about harassment, particularly what could probably be termed "racially aggravated" harassment, and it doesn't even get minimal discussion, you could get a little upset. I was very disappointed with the system here. I started documenting what to me seem like similar cases in my userspace. I think they're very relevant to the AE complaint I filed.
Over the years I realized there's a systemic problem, but it is not unique to Wikipedia, so I came back.
Nishidani was the one who brought the whole thing up in the discussion he linked to above [5], and now he's complaining that I replied to him. All he had to do is leave it be. And maybe not make off color jokes about being lynched on a page about people who were actually lynched and mutilated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, in the same post I mention just above, he accused other editors of having "ethnic-exclusive" "sentiments" [6]. That's an accusation of racism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Someone with an "ethnic-exclusive sentiment" is someone who cares only for his own, which is utterly human and absolutely normal. It doesn't help ensure that, in an area of ethnic conflict, WP:NPOV is secured, however. What other contiguous groups are, think or do, is a matter of indifference to them. A racist is someone who aggressively abuses, attacks or smears the outgroup. I do not see established editors here doing the latter: to the contrary I see editors looking closely at whatever edit might be interpreted as reflecting poorly on one party, while showing a total insouciance to the history of the other side. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. Someone who cares only for their own ethnicity is not a racist. Whatever. It's still a personal attack. Or did you mean it as a compliment as you spat it at people questioning why you keep changing what the sources say to push a certain POV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware that characterizing me as possible someone who spat your way verbally is rather violent in its imagery? Let me review why this kind of angry language is problematical.
Plot Spoiler appears on pages I edit only to revert me, and disappear. No discussion. He believes there is a growing body of evidence I am editing Wikipedia to demonize Israel (translated that means, I edit in lots of information about the P in the I/P area, i.e. what happens in the West Bank and Gaza)
You then jump in and an insult to injury.
These are personal attacks, and, in context, suggest again that your repeating the idea that I am motivated by anti-Semitism explains a 'growing body of evidence' I am 'demonizing' Israel. Nothing there shows me using this strong personal attack on either your or Plot Spoiler's bona fides. So we have a problem, and that's why I am asking that independent experienced editors review this thesis, which hangs like a cloud over my editing because of this concocted nonsense that I am anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. I have several editors who seem to revert me on any page I edit. Perhaps they haven't read your screed, but the tenor of this collective behavior and the irrationality of the reverts suggests they think anything I do is politically or racially motivated. If I were anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, why on earth do I make these edits, to cite but a few casually over the past few months. E.g.(1); (2);(3);(4);(5);(6);(7);(8);(9);(10)? Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't appreciate Nishidani's WP:personal attacks against me by saying that I edit in an "ethnic exclusive" fashion[7]. It's laughable for Nishidani to say it's not a personal attack. S/he should strike it as an act of good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
'Someone with an "ethnic-exclusive sentiment" is someone who cares only for his own, which is utterly human and absolutely normal.'(see above) If you have a range of edits introducing details of tragic incidents regarding Palestinians, I'd be illuminated to discover them. Most editors here edit from their personal interest in only one of the two parties. I find that wholly unreprehensible, because we are biologically wired that way. To the contrary, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto is contra-factual, however sublime the adage. No personal attack intended.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Strike your remarks as a matter of policy then. It is a personal attack. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
You appeal to policy, which however you wish to be applied uniquely to my comment for its inferred meaning. You and NMMGG have both made explicit attacks on my bona fides. On this you are silent. Rules are neutral, and editors who ask that they be applied to everyone but themselves are not being credible. Review your remark, cited above. I'd be interested to know why you don't consider it a personal attack. And why you think I 'demonize' Israel?Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I just realized he later changed the wording. Apparently the other editors don't have a "capacity for pity and horror [that is] not ethnic-exclusive". He was trying to tell us we're normal, you see? He was telling other editors that if they edit differently, he will "convince himself" that they're not normal. This is a recurring theme. For example, here, he helpfully bolded the word "normal" possibly implying that his interlocutors are really really normal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good grief, you can't even recognize an obvious allusion to Aristotle. I've asked some questions, raised a query. Please address them. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologize. Apparently my ability to recognize an obvious allusion to Aristotle is as limited as my capacity for pity and horror that's not ethnic-exclusive (ie normal?). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The word 'capacity' is ill-chosen. It was you who said I lacked the capacity to feel shame (You should be ashamed of yourself, but you obviously lack the capacity). Saying it is normal, wired into man to look after his own, can't be twisted to imply I intend some (anti-Semitic) innuendo that man is incapable of pity or horror for others. Your attempt to be clever only shows you cannot read anything I write except as some tacit, occultated 'sophisticated, subtle' (your words) game to get at an ethnic group. Back to the point then, why is your denial that I have a capacity for shame not an unwarranted attack? (2) If I am a 'symptom' of an anti-Semitic malaise affecting not only Wikipedia, but the whole Western world, as you now assert, what does this imply for situations where we are obliged to collaborate on articles? Please focus. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
"Capacity" was me directly quoting you. Thanks for elucidating what exactly you meant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read carefully. I said you had a capacity, that was restrictive. You said I lacked the capacity to feel a fundamental moral sentiment. I allowed your humanity, you excluded mine. I don't take offense, except at the failure to make indispensable distinctions.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You said I lack a "capacity for pity and horror that's not ethnic-exclusive". I doubt that's a compliment or meant to affirm my humanity. I'm still waiting to hear what ethnicity you were thinking about when you made that statement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

To tie all this back to the original complaint, perhaps Nishidani can tell us what ethnicity he was accusing other editors of being "ethnic-exclusive" towards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism speech is a crime (at least in Europe). Unfairly accusing somebody of antisemitism and reporting this is therefore defaming. This behaviour is in contradiction with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and also a worst case of breach of WP:NPA. More, No More Mr Nice Guy was warned by the ArbCom but he keeps attacking Nishidani. The conditions for a good collaboration with NMMNG cannot be met in these circumstances. I suggest that all the comments are removed from his page and that he is blocked for a significant period of time (2 months) if he makes any single allusion to a potential antisemitism of any contributor of wikipedia again. Pluto2012 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, absolutely no sanction. NMMGG has a fine eye for some things, that is productive and useful for Wikipedia. He noted, for example, two slips I made over two months, slips that were minor, but nonetheless distortions of the source (I plead haste, but I suspect in one edit, writing 'mostly' for 'several'(or whatever) does indeed look bad. I don't think this means that over 37,000 edits mostly from excellent sources, this kind of slip is indicative of an anti-Semite demonizing Israel.
As to NMMGG, I asked for clarifications, and none are forthcoming. He has repeated his belief I am a 'symptom' of a malaise in Western civilization, elsewhere identified as anti-Semitism, and this clearly makes his interactions with me difficult. All I really want is an equable editing atmosphere, not personal hostility on the pages.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The sensible solution is to allow NMMGG to retain his page of indictment of myself and Wikipedia (freedom of speech should be absolute). However, since the page does present his subjective contention about me as an anti-Semite as a fact, both his right to express his private views as a metacritique of Wikipedia, and my right to not be subject to an attack which implies I have a criminal outlook, evidenced in my editing, can be guaranteed, by attribution. All he need do, is present his evidence with some type of prefatory formula:'In my view, these edits suggest' an anti-Semitic attitude'. Underneath the evidence, simply link to my examination and answers to the accusations on my home page (User:Nishidani), and note I challenge his accusation. That done, all can feel justice is done, NMMGG in being allowed to retain a personal attack on me on that page, and my right to rebuff the charges. I make this suggestion after receiving a particularly lunatic death threat against my wife in an email, by one of the dozens of editors who have none of NMMGG's moderation and restraint, but, like him, are convinced that anyone editing also to ensure that the P side of the I/P area is duly and proportionally represented per WP:NPOV must be, ipso facto an anti-Semitic demonizer of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I am certainly not "convinced that anyone editing also to ensure that the P side of the I/P area is duly and proportionally represented per WP:NPOV must be, ipso facto an anti-Semitic demonizer of Israel". That's another personal attack on your part. I do think, among other things, that you (just you, not everyone) are a relentless POV pusher, who subtly changes what the sources say to advance a POV. Those "slips" you mention above do indeed look bad and can hardly be explained by "haste". Just like in the examples you give above that are supposed to showcase your wonderful NPOV editing, an 18 year old Palestinian who stabs people is called a "boy" (not in the source) or an Israeli who is stabbed in the stomach (in the source) turns into "lightly wounded in the torso", or the many many many other such examples I could bring if anyone actually cared about the integrity of this encyclopedia.
Anyway, could you kindly answer the question above? Which ethnicity were you talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No. If you want clarification of my varied remarks, which you appear to take invariably as adventitious personal ideas reflecting perhaps some obscure mindcast of mine, rather than allusions to somewhat clichéd elements of sociology, read any of the relevant literature on ethnicity, nationalism, outgroup/ingroup relations, beginning with Daniele Conversi,Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World, Psychology Press, 2004.p.76
Until you respond to my initial evidence of your documented framing of me as an anti-Semite active on Wikipedia, I feel no obligation to respond to attempts side-step the issue, move the goal-posts, and make out that, in outlining my case, I am engaged in a series of personal attacks. I'm not interested in bickering, but in independent external, neutral editors reviewing that evidence and making some suggestions that might free our collaboration from the sullied image of both myself and Wikipedia which you have highlighted on that page.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
To sum this query up for the benefit of neutral editors, how am I to establish an equable, collegial working relationship with an editor who uses Wikipedia to assert that I am an anti-Semite? It is as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What? You were not "allu[ding] to somewhat clichéd elements of sociology". You were telling other editors you doubt they have the capacity for pity or horror for people outside a certain ethnicity. An ethnicity you now wisely refuse to name. You need to "convert" so you can "convince yourself" they have such capacity, you said. So kindly cut the bullshit. I can't imagine anyone is buying this new line.
I have not moved the goal posts. You claim I am making personal attacks against you. I am discussing the issue with an admin above, and will gladly discuss with any uninvolved editor and will accept any consensus on whether I should keep that page or not. While doing that, I have provided evidence that you engage in personal attacks as you complain about attacks against you. Your hands are not clean and I think it's quite legitimate for me to point that out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You are ignoring the original points, and trying to engage me in a fishing expedition to turn the focus from what you've done, use a wiki page to accuse an editor of anti-Semitism. I have no confidence in your ability to construe my words in any other sense than as evidence of racial animus. I am quite happy to respond to any neutral third party who desires any clarification (i.e. I'll reply to them if, any of your counterfactual assertions have sown some doubt in onlookers' minds, such as: "Just like in the examples you give above that are supposed to showcase your wonderful NPOV editing, an 18 year old Palestinian who stabs people is called a "boy" (not in the source) or an Israeli who is stabbed in the stomach (in the source) turns into "lightly wounded in the torso" .") It is pointless discussing this with you, since, as you state on that page I am an anti-Semite, anything I do say in this context will be read as evidence of that hypothesis. In hermeneutics or science, that is a circular method that leads nowhere. So kindly stop the bickering, and allow others to air their impressions or views. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
To sum this query up for the benefit of neutral editors, how am I to establish an equable, collegial working relationship with an editor who uses Wikipedia to assert that I am an anti-Semite? It is as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that assertion is totally unacceptable. At minimum, that part of the page should be removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with IRISZOOM that asserting that Nishidani is an antisemite is unacceptable. In my view, labeling Nishidani as an anti-Semite violates WP:AGF. I posted a note on NMMNG's talk page asking him to refrain from attacking editors. First he appears to have attacked Nishidani by labeling him as an antisemite. Now he seems to be adding insult to injury by calling Nishidani a 'childless old man.' I kindly advised NMMNG to remove anything from the sub-page off of his user page that can be seen as labeling Nishidani as an antisemite, and to stop posting on Nishidani's talk page. NMMNG's allegations against Nishidani and his posts on Nishidani's user talk page are not in the spirit of the communitarian culture of Wikipedia, are counter-productive and do not help improve the encyclopedia. IjonTichy (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Could either of you kindly quote me "asserting" anything? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
While we wait for either of you to provide some evidence of me asserting what you claim I assert, would you like to share which ethnicity you think Nishidani was alluding to when he accused myself and a couple of other editors of lacking a "capacity for pity and horror that is not ethnic-exclusive"? I'm curious as to how other editors read this. Here are the diffs again [8] [9] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Simpler still. Is this page User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia, in attributing to a fellow editor the crime/pathological mindset of anti-Semitism, since the 'evidence' consist of diffs from my editing history, compatible with Wikipedia's principles of WP:AGF? A note on the kind of 'evidence' gathering, and its defects, being used to confirm NMMGG's suspicion can be found here. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the page. I hope that solves the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Black Kite (talk) wrote: 'Idon't see any reason not to delete that page per a textbook case of WP:POLEMIC (and it's bordering on a G10 speedy as well).'
He asked if anyone disagreed. No one has.
Johnuniq on your talk page, gave a thorough exposition of the policies principles that page compromises.
Those two editors are independent. I've actually been cautioned at times by the latter, justly so.
I have tried here, on my page, and just now on your page, to reach a compromise to allow you to retain that page (against policy) and my right of reply registered on it by a link. All you need to have added to satisfy my request was to write under your indictment: 'However, see this, a link where everything you list as an accusation is, to me, comprehensively answered. You simply reverted my last bid for a compromise that would save your interests and my honour. So, ignoring the three involved editors who think it should be removed, and my own opinion that you should annotate it to preserve my right to defend myself, I ask that the 2 neutral opinions, given no one is defending that page other than its author, be accepted as determinative, and that the page be erased from wikispace.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have had no dealings with Black Kite as far as I can remember, and he has a reputation as a good admin, so I will gladly discuss with him and take what he says to heart.
Johnuniq on the other hand shows up to support you every time you're on an administrative board, so no.
Two days ago you told me not to post on your page. As you can imagine, I didn't make much effort to read what you posted today on my page before I removed it. Turnabout is fair play as they say. I do not regularly read your page. So I didn't seen what kind of "compromise" you were suggesting. I did change the page's name as a compromise following the discussion here, since Black Kite seemed to think the name implied something. Any further changes will come if, as I said above, there's a consensus among uninvolved editors, something I don't see here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I told you to stop posting because I found your persistence in insinuating I was getting at Jews, aggressive, repetitive and tedious, and I read everything there. You reverted me without paying attention, mere tit-for-tat. To repeat, you can't 'frame' a fellow editor on wikispace, as you did. It is as strong a violation of any policy as you can get. I said you could, if you linked to my analysis of those accusations. I stated that here, on my page, and your page before you reverted. You dismiss Johnuniq as a partisan. You gave, however, no adequate reply to his close policy analysis, and I suggest any closing editor examine his reasoning before deciding. That's all I have to say.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Johnuniq's analysis is based on the false premise that I'm "asserting" something about you or "labeling" you. He ignored my request for quotes. I believe such claims should be backed up by a diff? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Come on! the Arbs looked at the material, and exonerated me, and told you to stop it. You withdrew, drew up an attack page, and even stooped to dropping hints, not too obscure, to another editor that I was up to the same old game you originally accused me of. I.e.
The page has the quote:
We found that there is hardly any difference in the semantics of highly educated anti-Semites and vulgar extremists and neo-Nazis.
You 'tipped off'(A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan) User:Ashtul You gotta hand it to the guy, he's quite good at what he does. Sophisticated and subtle, usually hitting points people from, shall we say "a certain walk of life" will immediately recognize, but outsiders would probably not. It doesn't need a genius to read one in the sense of the other (the 'guy' is little different from a neo-Nazi). Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No, a single admin dismissed it out of hand because he thought it was "vexatious". He even explicitly said he didn't look at all the evidence.
You could read all kinds of stuff into the quotes on that page, it's nice that you found one you feel fits you.
As for "sophisticated and subtle", when you said myself and Plot Spoiler lack a "capacity for pity and horror that is not ethnic-exclusive" [10] [11], what ethnicity were you talking about? Are you not saying that we care only about people of our own ethnicity? If that's not enough, doesn't it allude to a millenia old accusation against, what must be a complete coincidence, the same ethnicity? You drop this sort of stuff all the time. Maybe wording it like this gives you plausible deniability, but I doubt you don't see the connection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
While you think of a plausible explanation, I just remembered the time you said editors like me tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale. It doesn't need a genius to see how these things stack up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is obvious how it is an assertion. You had, until you just changed it, a page called "Antisemitism and Wikipedia" and some of Nishidani's edit was listed under "Wikipedia specific". --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not an assertion. That could be an implication. One that's gone now that I changed the page name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Per your comment above, do you have a suggestion? I have explained here (permalink) that the user page (which was originally Antisemitism and Wikipedia) should be removed because either there is evidence that Nishidani is anti-Semitic, or there isn't. In both cases, sly allegations have no place at Wikipedia—the correct procedure would be to discuss the evidence at a noticeboard. I would take this to WP:MFD but while reviewing some of the background it quickly became apparent that MfD would be very tedious due to the likelihood that the people who battle over every comma at WP:ARBPIA articles would arrive to vote according to their beliefs, and the principles of WP:POLEMIC would be drowned out with an attempt to discuss the allegations (as seen in the most recent comment at NMMNG's talk). Discussing the allegations completely misses the point of POLEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You said the page name implies something. I changed it. You said it's not ok to call something another editor said "malicious". I changed that as well. There is ample precedent showing I'm allowed to document faults with Wikipedia in my user space, including links to what other editors have said. One such precedent is Nishidani's own user page. So if you have something specific you feel is a problem (not including the fact you don't want your friend on that page at all), feel free to let me know and I'll consider it. Meanwhile it would be nice if you could answer my question after I answered yours, but I understand why you don't want to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Given your objections to the use of the phrase "the Chosen People" to refer to Jews (or, at least, those who regard territory in the Levant as theirs by divine right), do you think that what the Chosen People and Jews as the Chosen People say about Judaism is problematic, particularly statements such as the one in the latter which reads: "According to the Israel Democracy Institute, approximately two thirds of Israeli Jews believe that Jews are the 'chosen people'?" Since you don't like jibes about choseness in relation to (some) Jews, how do you feel about an Israeli cabinet minister using religious justifications for stating, “All the land is ours?”[12]     ←   ZScarpia   12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I came here as an univolved admin thinking I could help by closing this endless schlamassel. Well, I'm not going to categorise who is in the right or in the wrong but it looks very much to me like pots & kettles. So without beating about the bush, what I do expect however is for them both to put {{Db-u1}} on their user pages at User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff and User:Nishidani very quickly - and I mean delete, not just selectively removing contetious material, otherwise I'll delete the pages myself per POLEMIC. They only exist in order to incite something and have no usefulness towards the building of this encyclopedia or the friendly collaboration of its editors. I'll let any other admins decide what sanctions, if any, shoud be applied to the editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Not quite uninvolved. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Nishidani you stepped in ands argued forcefully for deletion and the community voted to keep. 'Pots and kettles' indicates a failure to understand 'cause and effect'. I was the object of a personal polemic: I said nothing for 2 years, and left the attack page unprotested. The editor in question left. He came back. Airily dismissing a defense of my bona fides as on a par with whoever might attack them, is frankly bizarre. As my defense notes indicate, the substance of this insinuation comes up frequently among Wikipedia editors. I don't take them to some policy board for sanctions. They are entitled to their beliefs. I do defend my right to make it absolutely clear on my home page to anyone who sights these frequent defamations what the actual story is about. All you are suggesting is that I am equally at fault for wishing to keep my profile here cleared of any innuendo of a criminal bias.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Particularly since I am, like some editors, subject to death threats, such as the latest a minute ago threatening to 'rape (my) granddaughter and smash her skull'. That otherwise responsible and capable editors, or passing admins, cannot understand that tolerance of these innuendoes has consistently led to death threats, is the problem, not my desire to maintain my integrity as an editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I wanted to notify people that I have nominated NMMNG's page for deletion, see here. Given Kudpung's above statement, my nomination appears redundant. I have not looked at Nishidani's user page for a considerable time and don't have an opportunity to examine it now, but it must contain some unsatisfactory material for Kudpung to have made the above comment. I suggest that Nishidani take a copy of the page to a file on a local computer, then put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. After it is deleted, recreate the page with no hint of whatever it is that is a problem. The details of that can be discussed on a user talk page if necessary (not here), but it is extremely unlikely that Kudpung is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. I think Kudpung is wrong. There is no such thing as infallibility, though experience tells me Johnuniq comes pretty close. No problem,Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: presumably the part of the sentence reading, "laughable attempt of using an anti-semite to explain what anti-semitism is," which NoMoreMrNiceGuy added above at 22:18, 20 May 2015 is referring to Richard Falk. Since Falk is very much alive, referring to him as an anti-Semite is a WP:BLP issue and the reference should be deleted. I wonder when NoMoreMrNiceGuy started calling Jews he doesn't like antisemitic?     ←   ZScarpia   13:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Phoenix article[edit]

DylanMcKaneWiki joined Wikipedia about a month ago and immediately started moving articles around. There were a number of issues with cut-and-paste moves and non-standard titles. Things generally settled down. Then he started the Celtic TigerCeltic Phoenix article—if we assume good faith, it's a split, but it leans into the realm of a POV fork to prevent only the good side of the recovery. That article has been tagged for a prospective merge into the article on Ireland's economy for a few days.

For the past few days, he has shown a pattern of editing while logged out, primarily with the IP listed above. If you look at the edit times over the past 24–48 hours, it's almost a clean handoff every time one or the other starts editing.

Today, he declared that he was giving in and allowing the merge to go ahead.[13] So, the logged-in Dylan proceeded to merge the article. The IP then unwound the merge, and Dylan logged back in to proclaim he'd changed his mind.[14]

Frankly, that was a bridge too far: the number of articles and templates he's edited in the last few hours will be daunting to correct for all of his edits. While I'd like to assume good faith that he just keeps getting logged out, it's starting to look like there's some intent to disrupt the encyclopedia with his edits—almost to the point of intentionally logging out to avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm reading too much in, but at the least, he needs some good guidance on how to work constructively with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC), amended 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Guliolopez has tried to engage with him, offering tips and advice. I admit to being snarky with him, but have also latterly offered advice, pointed out some of the problems with his editing, etc. Dylan rarely engages (only interaction with his talk page has been to blank it), and when he does it's to talk about us leaving "his" article alone diff. The cut-and-paste page moves have been problematic, the ownership is an obvious issue, as is logging out to perform edits/avoid his earlier block. A more serious problem is the complete ignoring of WP:NPOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
When I looked at his talk page before he deleted most of the content, I see a string of warnings for the past three weeks, asking and even pleading with him not to do moves which mess up the edit history of the page. It seems like this has happened on multiple occasions. Have you seen any improvement, C.Fred? Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't so much say he improved through the first part of May as his editing just quieted down and there were fewer problems. He went away from the economics articles and focused on shopping centres. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, there was no improvements just because he lowered his amount of disruption. I feel a long-term block is required as it is more and more evident from the several warnings he recieved that he has no intention to learn from mistakes and cooperate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, this dispute is about the Celtic Phoenix article, not the Celtic Tiger article, which DylanMcKaneWiki does not appear to have edited, but which would be a good merge target. Paul B (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's (mainly) about the Celtic Phoenix article, but DylanMcKaneWiki has edited Celtic Tiger, too, albeit when logged out - see this diff from 15th May is an insertion that adds in a 'See main article: Celtic Phoenix' template, for example, and there are more. The "109.7*.*.*" addresses that edited Celtic Tiger are the ones also disruptively editing Celtic Phoenix. WP:DUCK. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
And checking what links to Celtic Phoenix, I've found that the IP and/or editor concerned has inserted a chunk of text (that completely ignores WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL) into many articles, which includes a "See main article Celtic Phoenix" template, rather than directing readers to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The chunk had been pasted into Economic history of the Republic of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Post-2008 Irish economic downturn. This is a definite PoV fork... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I added the above note because this section was originally entitled by C.Fred "User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Tiger article" with a link to Celtic Tiger below, and the inaccurate statement that "he started the Celtic Tiger article". Obviously just an accidental slip up on C.Fred's part, but there was no reference to Celtic Phoenix at all in the thread. I changed the title and link so the comment now seems semi-irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. I had been trying to see what existed on ga.wikipedia; there is an article on the Tiger but not the Phoenix, so I crossed them up in my brain. Sorry about that. Paul B, feel free to whack me with a trout (which happens to be one of the main aquaculture products of Ireland, but I digress). —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin also semi-protect Post-2008 Irish economic downturn, please? It's currently got one whole page of edits by this user (both logged in and not), some small changes, some serious, many removing significant content, and what appears to be efforts to remove/alter admin-only templates. Most edits done with no edit summary. This is extremely disruptive editing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And now we have a page move - 2008–13 Irish economic downturn, because in Dylan's PoV, the downturn ended then. He has been repeatedly asked and warned not to do page moves like this, especially moves that may be controversial (and instead to use the requested moves procedure), and he simply can't be unaware that this wouldn't be uncontroversial, especially given it's talk page. Can an admin please do something about this? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've unwound the move. @Bastun: Had he been warned about the moving process and using WP:RM before? I know he's gotten prior warnings related to page moves, but I thought those were cut-and-paste moves. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope, he did another cut-and-paste move today: Post-2008 Irish banking crisis. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he has certainly been warned about them before, and I've requested him to use WP:RM. See also his talk page on 1st May and your own prior warning to him. I'm a little too busy right now to hunt down diffs for the WP:RM warnings/requests, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Again - can an admin please add semi-protection to Post-2008 Irish economic downturn - Dylan (logged out) is repeatedly removing Financial crisis from the article, not using edit summaries, not genuinely engaging on talk page, etc. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Have added Post-2008 Irish banking crisis to the list above. Similar logged out edits, again removing Financial crisis from the article, without consensus and in breach of NPOV. (A parliamentary committee was told just yesterday that over 110,000 Irish mortgages are in arrears... that should be of concern to the banks...) Can semi-protection be added to this one, too? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Update Semi-protection has now been added to the various Irish economic articles where disruptive editing by the IP listed above was taking place. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Numerous problems with EllenCT[edit]

Notice has been posted on EllenCT's Talk page about disruptive edits. This editor is a constant source of problems on several articles including Economic growth, Economic inequality and United States. EllenCT refuses to yield to editors' consensus. This editor is trying to monopolize Economic growth with income inequality, which by that editors own sources say that it is a minority view. This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material from Economic inequality and when questioned, promised to restore it but never did. In her Talk discussions EllenCT has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to be qualified to edit and for diversion requests sources for comments made by other editors on subject matter that someone familiar with the literature should know, then criticizes the sources, even when they are classic works on the subject. EllenCT has created such a mess that it will take many hours to sort out. This needs to stop.Phmoreno (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this needs some actual evidence, not content-free weasel-wording like "This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material..."
So, evidence, please. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As Calton says, Phmoreno, if EllenCT is "a constant source of problems" you should have no difficulty assembling a range of diffs supporting your argument. Liz Read! Talk! 10:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was my reply deleted along with so many other comments here? EllenCT (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies EllenCT, this was some sort of finger trouble I was not aware of, while I was posting at the bottom. I'm sorry. You've obviously reinserted your section; I'll go check the others. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that I have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge is contradicted by the fact that I base my article improvements on the peer reviewed secondary literature such as literature reviews published in the Journal of Economic Literature. Phmoreno has been trying to use primary source literature to avoid the importance of income inequality, and tried to delete this graph from the International Monetary Fund's large recent WP:SECONDARY study of the largest data set amassed on the question yet, which indicates that the income distribution is of top importance. Most of what Phmoreno calls "classic works" are monographs which have not been submitted to peer review. Also someone else notified me of this complaint. EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a boomerang may be due here. I'm hardly EllenCT's greatest fan, but EllenCT is standing up for relatively high-quality content - and Phmoreno has left a long trail of flaky sources and WP:SYNTH. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow EllenCT's editing, but I haven't seen much "relatively high quality content". Anybody can look at my user page and judge the quality of my content. Using my 500 pages of notes I turned some important technology and economic history articles from total junk to accurate representations of the subject, including a highly viewed article that was rated as a Wikipedia good article. It's unfortunate that we can't have a face to face debate over the subject matter in the board room and have the looser fired.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, be sure that any edits that purport to have been made by User:EllenCT were really made by User:EllenCT. There is a report below at this noticeboard that, among other things, mentions that an editor has a barnstar with a copy-and-paste of Ellen's signature that is therefore a forgery of Ellen's signature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang on Phmoreno for making unsubstantiated claims and spreading rumors about EllenCT without a single supporting diff. I recommend that the closing admin strongly warn Phmoreno about making baseless claims on ANI in the future. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While I agree he should show up with diffs next time, Phmoreno isn't wrong. EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. At the time Arbcom took no action specifically against her (most likely because she was peripheral to that case's purpose and just showed up as an unrelated person to level false charges against others, including me, which is how we were roped into it; of course Arbcom took no action against us either), but it certainly established a pattern of past behavior that should be kept in mind going forward. I didn't interact with her much after that until recently and haven't followed most of the specific activity Phmoreno referenced above, but I can affirm that she's hit the United States page with a POV blitz across multiple sections that sparked an edit war which led to the article being temporarily shut down, and has caused another editor to seek to have the page's recently restored "good" status reassessed.
For a specific, recent example showing she hasn't changed, she agreed to a compromise proposal on content that she blatantly violated a few days later. I led off my proposal saying "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." in exchange for me adding a separate segment to another section addressing her alleged concerns. She replied by saying, "I'm completely okay with that." Yet a few days after I implemented my part of the compromise, she tried to completely rewrite the segment she had just agreed to leave as is, deleting the most important parts. That's not good faith, and without good faith productive, collaborative editing is impossible. I don't expect this complaint to result in sanctions, but don't assume Phmoreno is just making this up and don't be harsh with him with a "boomerang" when he may not have understood how these things work. EllenCT has frustrated a lot of good editors over the years, even some who agree with her politics. VictorD7 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While EllenCT has engaged in such behavior listed above in other topics (documented at this ANI that I brought forward awhile back), diffs are needed to show what the actual problem is (if any) in this particular case. Without that, there's nothing to discuss here. I suggest Phmoreno should look at how other ANI postings are set up and provide diffs to support these accusations. Without that, those of us who are not involved in this particular case will only assume there isn't a behavior problem that needs to be discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, SPECIFICO'S accusation against me in that discussion is completely false, and he posted no evidence or specific commentary to support it. If I was "mercilessly" hounding EllenCT I probably wouldn't have completely missed that ANI discussion that apparently lasted a long time and involved many of the other editors who have had to deal with her. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To further underscore what I said above, I will add this recent illustrative quote that shows where she's coming from ([15]) in response to another editor's fairly innocuous post: "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats. That is not an opinion, it is a fact about the opinions of Americans on a per-capita instead of a per-dollar basis....If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia." - EllenCT VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Does the mainstream run between the people and the corporate parties, or between the parties? EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think readers need to look through the diffs Victor has brought up. There is no need for boomerang as it clearly appears Ellen is conducting all she is accused of. For all the damage she is causing, she cannot simply get away with it just because the user was ignorant to how AN/I works.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is not reassuring to see this edit by Phmoreno saying I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Though I agree Phmoreno is not conducting himself in a respectable manner, it does not excuse EllenCT for her editing. Perhaps the both of them should get blocked, but Ellen definitely deserves a longer duration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you would find anything wrong with wanting to remove material that misrepresents the truth and the sources. That message was to VictorD7 who understands what I am talking about.Phmoreno (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think people should look at the ongoing POV pushing by Victor and others at United States. Ellen is not the problem. For victor, this is an ongoing problem. Examples from another article, America: Imagine the World Without Her include edit warring 1.[16], [17], [18], [19] [20] [21][22] [23] [24][25] [26] 2. [27], [28] [29], [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Of POV Pushing: [35], [36], [37] [38] [39],[40] [41] [42] [43] [44], [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52], [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58][59] [60] [61] [62] Attacking other editors on talk pages: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. Ellen is defending well sourced material. Other editors are seeking to remove it or weaken the statements to support their POV. I would encourage any administrator to read the talk page of United States and examine the edit history. There are clearly editors who have problems with POV pushing, with the major problem being Victor. It isn't like he isn't pretty clear about his purpose here.[69]Casprings (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Except that Casprings' case falls apart under scrutiny. He pads his diffs with routine edits, alleged "personal attacks" that are mostly me defending myself, and alleged "POV" pushing that really just shows me expressing concern for neutrality. There was some edit warring on the other article, but it involved several editors on both sides, including him, and was ultimately resolved by me and what Casprings called my "supporters" using clear, honestly constructed RFCs to gain input from the broader community. He and his cohorts were the POV pushers, and he already filed a complaint against me with all that "evidence" that Arbcom declined to even hear, as the issue had already been resolved by then and it was just him waging a content dispute by other means. EllenCT wasn't even involved in that dispute, so this is just a lame attempt by him to distract from this section's topic. Casprings has a history of trying to get posters he politically opposes sanctioned by any means necessary, as this embarrassing example shows when he went after Arzel (citing some of the same evidence against him that he cites against me here above, including his link to my alleged "purpose" here). The admin's rebuke for the frivolous report was harsh enough that Casprings felt compelled to retract it, saying that he had posted it because he was "mad", not that it stopped him from trying again later. Gradually he morphed from targeting Arzel to targeting me. Calling me "the problem" is absurd. Ellen's entire Wikipedia existence is about ramming as much low quality political propaganda as she can into articles. Ellen and Griffin's soapboxing triggered a period of instability in the United States article in 2013, and their departure from the article after responsible left leaning editors joined with me and other conservative ones in stopping her resulted in a long period of article stability that recently saw the page's "good status" restored for the first time since early 2012. Her recent return has triggered a new period of instability. I'm not the one trying to radically alter long standing segments throughout the article or shove in one sided talking points on random topics of interest to me without talk page discussion or concern for encyclopedic quality. As for your old link allegedly about my "purpose" from a year ago, that was on my personal talk page and was in the context of simply trying to create a neutral article in the face of relentless POV pushing opposition by you and others. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Casprings 100%. I find it incredibly ironic that some editors are calling out EllenCT as a "problem editor" while ignoring VictorD7, who has been edit warring and POV pushing on the United States article since he first joined Wikipedia, and has been called out numerous times on his own talkpage. And looking over the edits that culminated in the United States page being locked down, it seems to me that VictorD7's reverts were to blame more so than anything else. It also looks like he violated WP:3rr with these four consecutive edits: [70], [71], [72], [73].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
My reply to Casprings is above. As to Griffin, who often acts as Ellen's POV pushing tag team partner, just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true (it's telling that I'm transparent enough to leave even false accusations on my Talk Page). I wasn't even one of the last three people to revert before the article was locked down: [74], [75], [76], [77]. I did not violate 3RR, as some of my edits you cite were consecutive. If you had bothered to read your own link, you'd see that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It would show good faith if you were to retract at least that false accusation. I did arguably engage in a little edit warring, as did you in recent weeks in that article, Griffin ([78], [79], [80], [81], [82]),and Ellen ([83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93],[94], [95], [96], [97], [98]; Ellen often falsely claims in edit summaries that an item has been approved "per talk", even when it has received nothing but opposition if it was mentioned at all on the talk page, and lumps things under an "RFC" that had nothing to do with an RFC), but I've never engaged in the lying, misrepresentation of sources, or libelous personal attacks that she has. Blaming me for the page lockdown or POV pushing is absurd when I wasn't the one trying to make changes to long standing article segments. Ellen showed up after a long period of article stability that coincided with her previous departure and instantly renewed old efforts to shove political talking points into sections across the article, in most cases without even bothering to try gain a talk page consensus first. Without that I wouldn't even be editing the article right now. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I will have to sort through a lot of material to present the pertinent facts in the case in addition to my personal experiences. In the meantime this discussion should remain open. It should be focused on the person who the complaint is against and not go directly into character assassinations of those in support of my complaint.Phmoreno (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not character assassination if it is fact. I still think EllenCT needs to be blocked, but maybe it would be better if all three (Phmoreno, VictorD7, and EllenCT) be handed some sort of block. They are all in some way tied up in this POV pushing and deserve a block to be determined by admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't be suckered by false claims, TheGracefulSlick, or knee jerk statements of equivalence. I've done no "POV pushing". Also, while I (among many others here) have engaged in some edit warring at times (in the sense that I occasionally reverted bad edits without breaking 3RR), my evidence against EllenCT in my first two posts above isn't even about edit warring. I lay out clear, salient examples of her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor of a specific outfit, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and showing disruptive bad faith in other ways. No one can find a single example of me doing anything like that, so don't lump us together just because we're involved in an argument with each other. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You might be the OP, Phmoreno, but other editors can add any facts here that they think are pertinent. And I think "character assassination" is overly dramatic when your words against EllenCT are just as harsh. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think one way forward (but not the only way) is for an admin to levy full page protection and for a new RfC to take place. I visited the talk page to see what all the fuss is about and made a few comments only to find myself quickly under attack by VictorD7, a wikilawyer par excellence. His contribution history portrays him as an SPA pushing an extreme, minority POV. I do not know if that characterization is accurate, but that's the impression I get from viewing his contribs. It needs to be noted that VictorD7 and Phmoreno have been actively feuding with EllenCT for at least the last year. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
False. You showed up and in your first post accused me of "engaging in outright denial" ([99]). You hadn't even commented on the right topic (the one actually being discussed), so in my reply I simply corrected your mistake and advised you to read more closely ([100], scroll down). In your next reply you attacked my motives ([101]), falsely accusing me of "intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S." and "engaging in denial". The rest of your post, again, contained a straw man argument, and my next reply just corrected you again while defending myself. If anything you showed up and started attacking me, not the other way around.
I'd also ask that you retract the false "SPA" claim. As the SPA page states, that tag is not based on timeline. You are not to use it on established editors who have edited multiple articles in the past but focus on one for an extended period of time. I've posted extensively on numerous articles since creating this account in 2012. In fact I've been accused of being a "SPA" on two different articles in recent months, lol, which proves it's not true. If I tend to mostly focus on a small group of articles it's because I don't have a schedule that permits dozens of edits a day. That has nothing to do with being a Single Purpose Account, which is mostly about ferreting out paid advocacy (COI) and is a very serious accusation you shouldn't recklessly throw around. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Boomerang: Clear attempt to bully and intimidate a content contributor who does careful research. WP:BAITing of EllenCT is also inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for VictorD7[edit]

From the conversation above, I propose the following:

VictorD7 (talk · contribs) has aggressively pushed his POV, edit warred, and dismissed other viewpoints in the topic area of American Politics. This behavior has occurred over a long period of time. For example, in the article America: Imagine the World Without Her, he has edit warred 1.[102], [103], [104], [105] [106] [107][108] [109] [110][111] [112] 2. [113], [114] [115], [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] POV Pushed: [121], [122], [123] [124] [125],[126] [127] [128] [129] [130], [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138], [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144][145] [146] [147] [148] and attacked other editors: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]

He has POV pushed in the article United States since he first joined Wikipedia. In edits that culminated in the United States page being protected, VictorD7's reverts played an essential role. He also violated WP:3rr with four consecutive edits: [155], [156], [157], [158] He often attacks others editors on the talk page of the article. [159] [160] [161]

Victor edits primary on topics that relate to the Politics of the United States and has made his purpose for editing those articles clear. [162] As such, VictorD7 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction includes the article United States. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator. VictorD7 may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

Casprings (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I did not violate 3RR and I ask you to show good faith by retracting that false accusation. Consecutive edits counts as one revert. The rest of your post I rebutted in the above section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Really, Cwobeel? It doesn't bother you that he started this outrageous character assassination section with a blatantly false claim about me violating 3RR (actually multiple false claims but that one's salient, objective, and easy for anyone to quickly discern), a claim you had made about those same edits earlier that I've already corrected you on? On what grounds should this ridiculously over the top punishment be imposed? Have you even read these links? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe it would be best of you declare a break, take some time off per WP:WPDNNY, come back after that refreshed, and maybe with a better attitude. That may save you from a block... - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm fine with taking a Wiki break, but I'd prefer you answer my questions. Defending myself from false personal attacks isn't reflective of a bad attitude. VictorD7 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support(uninvolved non admin) The numerous diff's provided leave little doubt a ban is needed for VictorD7. POV pushing and attacks on other editors should never happen. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    You mean attacks like false accusations of violating 3RR and paid editing? Did you actually read those "numerous" diffs? What were the most egregious examples of "POV pushing" you found? Mostly I just read sources and clarify issues for people on talk pages. The vast majority of my interactions are civil and productive. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I read each and every diff, it took some time. You repeatedly pushed your own edits back in. You went off of the discussion of the article and aimed your replies at another editor. The one I find most troubling is the use of "any sane person". You did all this and looking at what has been presented it is more than enough. I will also caution you, as others have, that you do not help your cause questioning ever poster here, it in fact proves to me that you need a break from the area. AlbinoFerret 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect not defending myself would work even worse. Just to clarify, the "personal attack" you found most "troubling" was this one...[163]...where I simply used the same "any sane" wording the editor did in the post I replied to, visible above mine, where I was setting the record straight and defending myself from, among other things, his accusations of being "churlish" and engaging in "gamesmanship"? BTW, like most of the above "evidence", that was from last year (or the beginning of this year) in an article that did get heated on all sides at times, but I haven't been to that article in months nor have I interacted with that editor since. Is that really worth something as draconian and sudden as a broad topic ban? VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Overwhelming evidence against the user, and I propose a block with time to be decided by admin. VictorD7, don't bother commenting to this support as your counter-statements help little to whatever defense you have left.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I stopped being able to believe that VictorD7 has been editing in good faith years ago. I keep trying to work with him, but he refuses to accept only adverse RFC results, with an extremely asymmetric idea of compromise, always in his favor even when he has accepted facts which imply his judgment has been in error. I would be most grateful if the community recognizes that he is motivated by ideology instead of a desire to improve the encyclopedia, to the extent that corrupting the quality of articles and intentionally trying to mislead people about vital economic and policy topics means nothing to him when he has some glimmer of hope that he is scoring some long-antiquated political point for far-right corporate interests opposed to those of individuals. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reasonable case has been made for a block on VictorD7. It is just a list of the man's edits, not evidence of edit-warring, POV-pushing, etc. I followed up diff 173, which was an August 2014 edit to the article on the film : America: Imagine the World Without Her. Looking at the edit in the context of other the edits to the article, VictorD7 appeared to be acting reasonably. Though two editors disagreed with him, another editor agreed with him on that point (though disagreed with him on other points - so was not part of a tag-team).-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (uninvolved) As with the discussion about EllenCT above at this time, I don't see a case laid out justifying a topic ban. A large number of diffs were provided, but they alone without context don't provide a narrative for a major NPOV issue. I'm only seeing involved editors looking to topic ban the other at this time in the conversation. If someone wants to rise above that, they'd need to actually demonstrate the actual ongoing problem at least somewhat concisely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This is seeming typical of both sides of the political articles squabbles here at ANI – to try and knock editors from other side out by having them "blocked" for this or that. I should have boldly closed this entire topic down early on when I had the inclination (and before it morphed into a tit for tat exchange...). At this point, it would be a mercy for Admin to close this down, and send both camps back to their various articles to argue and fume some more. [sigh...] --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Kingofaces43 I'm also not seeing the context within the diffs to justify a topic ban. I'm not familiar with this particular dispute, but I should note that I've worked with both Victor and Ellen in the past. I can't recall working with Phmoreno. Morphh (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Casprings, TheGracefulSlick, EllenCT and what I stated above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per the evidence, and the arguments, presented above. IjonTichy (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a unilateral ban in a case like this. There's enough bad behavior in both directions to go around between these two across a wide range of articles. Would support an interaction band or a bilateral topic ban to make the articles they fight over usable again by other editors. But a one-way action against the one initiated by the other is of no use. --Jayron32 01:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a mistake to equate me and EllenCT (or me and Griffin or Casprings for that matter). I've typed up an EllenCT section that would show just how out of whack that is, though I haven't decided whether I'm going to post it or not. For now I'm holding off, mostly because I just showed up here to defend the op from a harsh "boomerang" when he clearly wasn't familiar with how ANIs work. I didn't call for sanctions against EllenCT in my posts above, and the only time I initiated a report against her was when she refused to stop accusing me of being a paid editor, though I could certainly make a much stronger case against her than Casprings did against me. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with VictorD7. Each user should be handled individually instead of saying, "well, look at all the bad behavior going on".Casprings (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that at all. On the contrary, I think context is vital. Besides, you've got a funny way of showing you believe that either since this section was created to discuss EllenCT. VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jayron32: if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and it is very disappointing to see such insinuations from such an administrator without any evidence. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron, this dispute is hardly a one-way affair. There are uncivil POV pushers working in both directions here (which has created an interesting pseudo-balance in the articles about the politics of the United States). Banning one editor would not solve this dispute, but I would be in favor of a bilateral topic ban. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. I have been editing strictly according to the peer reviewed literature reviews, not my personal politics. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't a one-sided issue and any sanctions shouldn't be one-sided either. It takes two to tango. Calidum T|C 21:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, I note that no actual evidence of any bad behavior on my part has been presented. The idea that "it takes two to tango" is as bad as he-said/she-said journalism when one side is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong. EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Strong support (uninvolved non-admin) Knowledgeable editors like EllenCT who cite neutral scholarly sources about contentious matters are so exceptional here that pushing for informed neutrality is seen as POV pushing by those (from both sides of the left/right divide) who are here to overwhelm and conquer by using their own pet junk citations. This is not a matter of one side trying to knock the other out in a left/right divide. It is a matter of who is here to contribute and who is here to just win. [164] makes it clear why VictorD7 is here. There are many knowledgeable editors who have EllenCT's ability to cite neutral, scholarly sources and just can't stand contributing here any longer because of "the numbers and persistence" of those who can't or won't find the best citations instead of the ones that allow them to achieve their goal for their team. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    Leaving aside the fact that EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs (example: [165]), is generally terrible at selecting and comprehending sources, and is the least neutral editor I've encountered on Wikipedia, that quote by me you mention was context specific in regards to trying to pull a particular article toward neutrality from a tendentious group bent on propagandizing, and was simply an undeniable description of how Wikipedia works. It said nothing about "why" I'm here. By contrast, statements like this from EllenCT say a lot about her purpose here: [166] "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense." [167] "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats." VictorD7 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    The same editors who can't or won't evaluate textual context in sources also often fail to evaluate context in other editors' words. Using a blog (fringe or not) on a talk page to summarize opinions for other editors about what's wrong with an article is a great idea and is very different from using a blog in the article itself. Using blogs in the article will almost always harm the reader. Pointing to blogs in the talk page can often help the reader by allowing one editor to summarize things (fringe or not) for other editors. By simply writing "EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs" without adding the context in which she uses them, you conflate discussion about an article with harming an article. My thinking is that this is a strong indication of your motives, and my opinion has changed from "support" to "strong support" as a result of this most recent failure to evaluate words in context. Of course, whether a blog is fringe or not is irrelevant to a discussion about editor behavior. EllenCT's comments at [168] that VictorD7 mentioned continue: It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior emperical data, and the other does not. Removing demonstrable nonsense helps the reader. My view is that VictorD7, by citing particular sentences that EllenCT wrote out of their context, simply wishes to win. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    Who said she didn't want to use the blog in the article itself? She defended the source (what Cadiomals aptly called "some twenty-something woman's rant blog"; it is a rabid anti-American screed on some random personal blog) when its RS status was attacked, and said she wanted to include points from it in the article and reshape the entire page according to its themes. Leaving aside the fact that using such a horrible source to dictate the entire layout of the United States article is even worse than simply using it to support one segment (perhaps one covering broader opinionated disagreement) per WP:NPOV (among other things), the blog itself uses fringe blogs (and sometimes Wikipedia or busted links) as sources for the points she wanted included. It does help to fully read what you comment on. EllenCT also has a history of using fringe advocacy/lobbying groups as sole authoritative sources (e.g. [169]; INSIGHT: Center for Community and Economic Development, Oakland CA), even when their claims are uncorroborated and strongly disputed by far more reliable sources (the most salient example is Citizens for Tax Justice, the lobbying arm of a liberal think tank called ITEP, whose tax chart she tried to force into articles across Wikipedia for over a year, causing enormous disruption; e.g. - [170], [171])
As for the quotes, it's interesting that you accuse me of taking things out of context when you above quoted a full four words from me in totally distorting what I was talking about. By contrast, the most pertinent element in my quote of EllenCT above is "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion." That's not true. We all have our views, but we are supposed to edit in a nonpartisan fashion. Of course we're to avoid false balance, but simply asserting there is such a false balance in a particular case doesn't make it true. It's also telling that EllenCT believes Wikipedia is "mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense", and that most Americans are to the left of the Democrats. That means she believes Wikipedia is politically waaaay to the right of the American people, which is something to keep in mind when championing her as a supremely competent, knowledgeable editor with a firm grip on reality while attacking and dismissing the countless editors who have been frustrated trying to collaborate with her. For real context, read the rest of the link you quoted from (you actually posted the wrong link). She's replying to an editor who shares her politics and started off on her side, but started distancing himself when shown proof she was wrong. After she complains about him saying something positive about me, he answers, "I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the Tax Policy Center, which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults."
As for evaluating sources, maybe you can succeed where she failed. That same discussion was one of the multiple times she claimed [172] that this article [173] states that roughly 50% of corporate tax incidence is borne by consumers, even calling it "the best source". Except, like the rest of modern scholarship, it focuses only on different ideas about the labor/capital split. Searches show it doesn't even mention the word "consumer" in any variation. She made similar false claims [174] about "page 17" of this source [175] (everything she said about me there is false too), saying it shows "50%-75%" of taxes fall on consumers. Except page 17 doesn't mention the word "consumer" in any variation either, and is also about the labor/capital split. In fact it, like most of her own sources, totally undermined her own claims about tax regressivity. Discussion elsewhere indicated she didn't understand the difference between labor and consumption, or even that investment, labor, and consumption are activities rather than distinct groups of people. When I repeatedly asked her to support her assertions with a single source quote she refused to do so and has never retracted her claims. [176], [177], [178], [179], [180] Maybe you can find the source quotes she couldn't. Or, if you're unwilling to read and rationally engage in discussions like this then you shouldn't stridently make assertions you can't back up. I'm only posting this now because I couldn't let your above comments go unchallenged. Pretty much everything you said above is the opposite of the truth.VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a pretty unfair application of bad faith to those that have had disputes with Ellen. Intelligent people can disagree on what sources say if we're not directly quoting them and what the weight should be for the given scope of an article. Ellen and Victor are both very passionate and opinionated editors, which tends to balance out. I hope that any admin considering action would take the time to read through some of these disputes and see the varying viewpoints in full context. Morphh (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron and Flying Jazz, overwhelming a post with bullying and incessant tl;dr exhibits bad faith from a longtime tendentious editor. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if we keep putting TBs on editors because of their interests in certain topics we will run out of editors, which happens to be a pretty serious issue WP is facing now. What happened to the brief cooling-off periods, like 48 hr blocks for both sides with unclean hands? Or how about a mandatory discussion at DRN or with a 3O? This new trend of TBs is rather disconcerting, especially when PP, and possibly imposing 1RR or 0RR for a set period of time are still options. --Atsme📞📧 00:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose You want to place an indefinite ban, "broadly construed", on an editor one side, proposed by an editor active on the opposite side of the issue, and based on the "discussion above" that didn't start out to involve the person to be banned, and appealable only after 12 months, without at first assessing more balanced and temporary measures, and you can get support for that? Wow. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT- specific issues[edit]

Difficulties I’ve experienced with EllenCT are issues on Economic growth, although it appears that she is causing similar problems on Economic inequality and United States : EllenCT’s edits on Economic growth are primarily, if not exclusively, in the Income equality section.

  1. EllenCT is the person most responsible for the Income equality section being disproportionately large relative to the topic’s main causes and to its coverage in growth literature. (See 5)
  2. Despite the Income equality section being tagged WP:UNDUE several times, EllenCT continued to add to it.
  3. It has been suggested several times that most of the material in the section be removed to I separate article. I added the main article Economic inequality, where EllenCT actively edits.
  4. EllenCT then added income inequality related material into the productivity section, trying to use the supposed gap between productivity and median family income. In this discussion Soapbox 1 she exposes her POV by trying to change the focus from the importance of productivity to growth to how income is distributed by using a graph of median family income. EllenCT had to be aware that this graph was misleading because she was involved in discussions about it where papers said: Total compensation tracks productivity better than median family income and there was a change in “family” composition over time, with a rise in single parent households associated with poverty and income inequality.
  5. Here is how some of the material the Income equality section is described by others on Talk:Economic growth#Other problems in the inequality section “I'm sorry but that whole section is crap.” And “The whole thing is still one big disorganized mess”.
  6. On EllenCT’s talk page I asked her to leave a summary and take the rest of the material to Economic inequality. She ignored this request.
  7. What do you make of this exchange?: Phmoreno: Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say.Phmoreno (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) EllenCT: That is so dishonest! The only reason Temple (1999) says there has been little interest in income distribution because he spends the remainder of the literature review showing why it's so important. You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them, thank you very much. EllenCT (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Phmoreno: So that there is no confusion about what my statement referred to, here are Temple's words: Yet macroeconomists have traditionally shown little interest in the gulf between rich and poor. The study of growth at the aggregate level has often been something of a backwater, relegated to a brief last chapter in mainstream textbooks, and rarely taken on by anyone outside development economics.Phmoreno (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  8. Based on her edits and more importantly our Talk discussions, I have doubts about EllenCT’s knowledge of economic theory. She keeps asking for sources on basic concepts like the importance of productivity, then when I refer her several references used in this article and to the NBER, she criticizes the sources. She's questioning concepts that are fundamental to understanding her favoriet reference Temple (1999), which requires an understanding of macroeconomic modeling and analysis techniques. (Perhaps she can give us a section-by-section summary.) Also, thre was a comment to her on Talk:Economic inequality about the fact that developing countries should be handled separately from developed countries and I have pointed out here (as have her sources, suuch as Temple) that many countries do not report the necesary statistics (or they are of too poor quality) to put into production fucntions for analysis. Despite this she keeps mentioning that the IMF paper claims income inequality is the most important determinant of growth, failing to mention non-traditional, difficult to quantify variables have to be used in the analysis. Also, I had to go correct the statement about the IMF paper in one of the articles to say that income inequality is related to the duration of growth, not the magnitude.
  9. However, she admitted that productivity was important in this exchange: Talk:Economic growth #"Needs to be replaced with real per-capita income versus productivity” EllenCT: @Phmoreno: re [181], how would per-capita (mean) income ever diverge from productivity? They are completely correlated…. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  10. I will not pursue claims of removing material which she admitted to here: Talk:Economic inequality#Recent edits EllenCT: “I intend to restore most if not all of that material absent persuasive arguments to the contrary.“EllenCT (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) EllenCT’s removal of content was relatively minor compared to another editor’s.
  11. In conclusion, the various talk pages show a long history of problems with EllenCT involving several editors. She has left some serious messes that will require a lot of work to sort through and clean up. She has made some attempts to do this, but still engages in posting slanted edits.Phmoreno (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the editor who has engaged with EllenCT the most with regard to the inequality section of the Economic Growth article. I'm the one who put in the undue/too long tags - because they need to be there. I'm the one editor who's argued with her the most about the issues pertinent to that section. I've disagreed strongly with many of her edits - in this particular section, in most other respects her edits were fine - and did at one point get pretty exasperated with the inability to find common ground.

Still, I see no reason for why EllenCT should be sanctioned in anyway or warned or whatever for these edits. This is mostly a straight up content issue. In fact, problems with Phmoreno, conduct wise, have been much worse than with Ellen. At least one can have a constructive conversation with Ellen, with Phmoreno it sort of degenerates quickly. I'm also willing to take some responsibility for the continuation of the existence of the dispute about economic inequality and economic growth. Basically, I know that if I had the time I could sit down and write that section so that both Ellen and I would agree on it. Problem is that it's starting with a pretty crappy draft to work with and properly revising it would take a lot of work. And I've been lazy about it. All this is a way of saying that's it's not all Ellen's fault that those tags are still there.

Anyway. Boomerang it or let it go. I got no opinion on all the opportunistic assholery that's showed up in this request above calling for Ellen's head but the nature of the comments makes me suspect that that's exactly what it is: "I have a chance to get somebody who disagreed with me once banned so I'm gonna act like an opportunistic asshole!"Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"It's not personal... it's strictly business."Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you have her agree to let you remove everything and rewrite it yourself, including some of her content. It would be easier than for you and the others than constantly agruing with her. Otherwise, this will go on for a long time.Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who sympathises with Phmoreno's line of argument here - that EllenCT has put excessive weight on a topic, and lacks economic expertise - is invited to read Phmoreno's most-edited article, Productivity improving technologies (historical). You'll need a couple of days and you'll need to forget about the existence of WP:SYNTH, of course. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Phmoreno that productivity is important. I have asked Phmoreno for sources comparing the importance of productivity and income distribution. There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. So far I have seen zero sources, from Phmoreno or anyone else, comparing the relative importance of the two. Phmoreno's productivity section is longer than the income distribution section in the Economic growth article, and he has insisted that it come first. Why does he want to downplay the importance of the income distribution? Several of his points enumerated above (especially 2 through 6) apply to the article in an intermediate state before recent improvements and the long series of improvements in January in which Phmoreno did not participate at all, and none of them are serious behavior issues. So far, Phmoreno has been unable or unwilling to identify a single peer reviewed literature review in support of any of his points.

Phmoreno's point number 7 is indeed an extremely dishonest further attempt to misrepresent a secondary peer reviewed literature review, Temple (1999), published in the Journal of Economic Literature. The review author was complaining that economists in general did not give sufficient attention to the income distribution among the determinants of economic growth, and his primary conclusion is directly contrary to Phmoreno's contention that it should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not know and never claimed to know of any sources that specifically compares the importance of labor productivity to income distribution. But let's look at your statement here: There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. This is a perfect example of how you operate because your sources do not make that comparison either, because of insufficient statistics on productivity and capital in developing countries. They are comparing a different set of variables. The burden of providing proof that income distribution is more important than labor productivity, capital or new products falls on you because it is completely outside of any mainstream view. If that were an accepted view you should have no problem finding multiple sources to support it. The literature only claims productivity, capital and new products as being responsible for economic growth. The importance of productivity is well noted in the history of economic thought where it was mentioned by classical economists, neoclassical economists and modern economists.[1] Marx clearly stated that productivity and technical advancement were the causes of growth. Kendrick stated that labor productivity accounted for three quarters of US economic growth in the century leading up to 1956. There is a vast amount of literature on productivity and its relationship with growth. The opening sentence of this St. Louis Fed paper is typical: [182]Over long periods of time, increases in “real” wages-that is, adjusted for changes in consumer prices, reflect increases in labor productivity. If you compare real wages a century ago with those today you will see that they are between 10 and 20 times higher today. So what do you think would have happened to real wages if we had redistributed income 100 years ago and held productivity constant?Phmoreno (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I was a bit ignorant of many of these issues, so I went to the Income distribution article (which EllenCT has not contributed to in any way to the best of my knowledge) and found the link to INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND Research Department. Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Prepared by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry1. Figure 3 on page 12 compares the impact of multiple macroeconomic factors on growth spell duration, and Income Distribution comes out on top. Labor productivity isn't mentioned. Why not? Here's a hint: it has something to do with the word "independent." Yes, EllenCT is up to the usual sneaky tricks that knowledgeable people have of using language in a precise way. You may not know what the word independent means in this context or in the context of any complicated function with multiple inputs and one output. If you do know, you may be intentionally hiding or misapplying that knowledge. Ellen and the IMF are, in effect, saying, "This car is faster because it is built a certain way." You are saying, "This car is faster because its wheels have a higher rotation rate." Why doesn't someone in the automotive industry compare the importance of wheel rotation rate to car design in determining speed? Because that would be a stupid thing to do. Why doesn't an economist compare the importance of labor productivity to income inequality in determining growth? Same reason. One editor has the background and knowledge to correctly utilize the word independent and the other without that knowledge seems to be ignoring it. All of that would be viewed as an amusing miscommunication and comedy of errors among editors talking past each other on a talk page. It's being discussed here because the less knowledgeable editor wishes to win an argument by preventing the more knowledgeable editor from contributing at Wikipedia. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding point #7, here is what I make of the exchange. It's difficult for a person who is knowledgeable in a particular field to know how to best react at Wikipedia when another editor misrepresents the literature of that field by taking a single isolated sentence or two out of its particular context in one paper. It can be immensely frustrating for someone with a strong background who knows and understands a discipline to see another editor advocating for overemphasizing one sentence in a misleading way. EllenCT recognizes the context of a particular sentence or two due to familiarity with the intent of the paper in the field as a whole. I believe (but I can't state this strongly because of my own lack of familiarity with the field) that Phmoreno not only doesn't recognize this context but accused EllenCT of not reading or ignoring that one sentence. Being called dishonest in that situation is well deserved, and the statement "You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them" is also well deserved. I want knowledgeable people here who are familiar with a field and care about it to contribute to articles. Unfortunately that sometimes means displaying appropriate impatience with unfounded accusations of ignorance from the truly ignorant. That's what I make of the exchange. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a simple argument over weight. Ellen is arguing that it's due weight as an important viewpoint (referencing the publication author) and Phmoreno is arguing that it's a small minority viewpoint (referencing the publication author). Both points worth further discussion - no reason for personal attacks or calling anyone ignorant. Morphh (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
When I read "Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say," I see an unjustified accusation from Phmoreno that EllenCT is ignoring something that she did not ignore. Ignoring something is ignorance personified, so I see an unjustified accusation of ignorance from Phmoreno to EllenCT in that statement, thus personalizing a dispute, where you only see an argument over weight. We have different eyes. I don't think the request "What do you make of this exchange?" was meant for editors like me with my eyes. I will not comment here again. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Hunt, E. K.; Lautzenheiser, Mark (2014). History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective. PHI Learning. ISBN 978-0765625991. 

WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches[edit]

Last year I filed a RfC against User:Middayexpress for repeated violations of NPOV in regarding to Somalia related articles, and associated continual removals of WP:THIRDPARTY sources, often replacing them with official or less scholarly sources. ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress) He drove me away from editing Wikipedia for a time with his relentless POV reverting, and it appears that User:Chuckupd complained of the same problem. Recently I've come into contact with User:Cordless Larry who has reported similar problems at Somalis in the United Kingdom, most recently removal of complete information in violation of WP:YESPOV and replacing high-quality sources such as the Economist with letters to the editor of a community newspaper. Having been advised that AN/I was an appropriate route, and possibly more user-friendly than Arbcom, I began collation of a draft AN/I response in my userspace. This I set up at a very old draft page, User:Buckshot06/Sandbox Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces, not being too worried about what the page title was. Within about 24 hours Middayexpress was commenting on it at [183], calling it a 'copy of his previous rant'. I've been trying over and over again to correct this editor's misrepresentation, and myself, and users User:Cordless Larry and User:BrumEduResearch [184] [185] are only the latest that are very concerned with this user's edits. I would like User:Middayexpress warned that even if there are disputes over content, or even NPOV, that dismissing editors' descriptions as a 'rant' is a personal attack, and in violation of the spirit of building an encyclopedia. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple content disputes about Somalis in the United Kingdom that are not entirely civil but are basically content disputes. I have recommended in the recent past, and will recommend again, that they request formal mediation. There are too many disputes for any light-weight dispute resolution process. A mediator should be able to get the parties to be civil and to engage in useful discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
There have been multiple content disputes at a wide range of articles - my initial involvement was at Somali Civil War and Somali Armed Forces. Many display the same characteristics. I was directed to a RfC, but at the very end of that RfC I was told it was the wrong forum. Then I was advised about AN/I. I'd like to avoid having to go through every last forum before having to resort to Arbcom - are you sure that RfM is the correct place? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Consider WP:RFM as it will give the opportunity to settle this in a civil environment.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon has indeed suggested mediation for the Somalis in the United Kingdom, and I have been preparing to request that, for the education section in particular. I remain willing to do so, but what has been slowing me down with the request is that I've been taking in Middayexpress's behaviour across a wider range of articles. I am increasingly convinced that this is no longer a simple content dispute but rather an issue of user conduct across a range of articles and their talk pages, including Somalia, Somali Civil War and Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Here are some of my concerns:
  • Repeated replacement or removal of material in the name of "contextualisation", such as this;
  • Removal of third-party and secondary sources, either replacing them with primary sources, or sources that don't support the material, or without replacing them, as is being discussed currently on the RS noticeboard; see also this for another example, discussed here; previous discussions on the RS noticeboard have attracted comments such as "Oh! That editor has had similar problems with source-misuse in the past. I hope that can be stopped soon";
  • Removal of material based on reliable academic sources, using WP:REDFLAG as justification (in this example, the text removed was "Vertovec gives the example of Somalis in the United Kingdom, arguing that the Somali community includes British citizens, refugees and asylum-seekers, people granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants, and secondary migrants from other European states", sourced to an article by Vertovec in the scholarly journal Ethnic and Racial Studies);
  • Continued insistence that official government sources must be preferred to scholarly ones (I suggest searching Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom for the word "official"), contrary to WP:RS;
  • Misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, for example claiming that the fact that WP:CRITERIA states that article title consistency is a goal rather than a hard and fast rule is superseded by the statement that "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow";
  • Posting talk page comments that seem to insinuate that other editors who disagree with him/her might be members of hate groups, e.g. this and this;
  • Not assuming good faith with new editors, such as BrumEduResearch and with User:HOA Monitor (this comment added by Buckshot06) [186];
  • Stating that my requesting mediation would constitute forum shopping, while not being ashamed to tag-team edit, as was previously discussed here (note that concerns about Middayexpress accusing others of canvassing but engaging in it him/herself have been expressed before;
  • Claiming the support of editors without them having even commented on the issue under discussion, as previously reported by BrumEduResearch;
  • Accusing me of WP:HOUNDING for agreeing with him/her.
Additionally, I have looked at the comments Middayexpress has made upon being informed of Buckshot's AN/I draft, and I am concerned that Middayexpress is intending to engage in canvasing off-Wikipedia. I quote: "I'm not sure why he believes that getting rid of me will solve his problems. In actuality, that will only be the start of them because loads of Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and others will subsequently join the website and see the sytemic bias that goes on here. For the moment, just you, me, 26oo, Inayity, and a few other regulars on the Africa WikiProject are aware of it. But with me elsewhere, doing other things and no longer bound by Wikipedia's rules, that will surely be the catalyst that open's Pandora's Box". Middayexpress has previously made reference to posting on external forums in order to solicit opinion, here and here.
I don't want to flood this page with comments, so I will leave it there for now, but I can provide more examples of the above should they be required. As I say, I'm happy to request mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom, but this is a bigger and longstanding issue, as these archives show. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Should note that I have also noted (and inserted above) another example of not WP:AGFing in regard to a new editor, in addition to BrumEduResearch, User:HOA Monitor (.. ("huge" doubt..). HOA Monitor is no longer editing. I am very dismayed that there are strong indications that Middayexpress is driving away and discouraging multiple editors in this fashion - the project needs all the committed people that it can get, not just the ones that accord with his point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I registered a Wimipedia account to contribute to article about migrant communities in the UK, which I research, and was immediately targeted with accusations by Middayexpress. He continues to overrule reliable academic sources in favour of official statistics, and rules out compromises using both types. A good example is in the coverage of Somali pupils' GCSE results, where he insists on reporting only figures from a few London boroughs even though data on other parts of England exists. Unsurprisingly, the London boroughs just happen to be where Somali pupils do best. This fits the POV pattern described here. To be honest, I have wasted my time arguing with Middayexpress, which could have been spent better on other articles, but he is so persistent that it is hard to avoid. What worries me is that he edits many, many articles and that some have few other editors, so of he's getting away with POV where Cordless Larry and Buckshot have noticed, what is he getting away with on other less watched articles?BrumEduResearch (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I share the concerns about Middayexpress' pov-pushing; I've encountered blanking, source-misuse &c on other pages (I tend not to overlap much with Buckshot06 or Cordless Larry). The previous RfC/U was overrun by people canvassed by MiddayExpress. Now Buckshot06 tries to put together another case and the attacks and canvassing start again. How can this be stopped? bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As of now I am only going to make a few comments. For starts, that page isn't a "very old draft page" nor it is even "old" at all since you made it just yesterday. It contains pretty much the same thing from your previous filing at Request For Comment which other changes as well (some removals as well as the additions of Somalis in the United Kingdom). Anyways, Midday isn't "canvasing off-Wikipedia" at all (or has at least not engaged in any yet) CordlessLarry. Just look at the IPs and accounts that have shown up these past few years, are these all the good individuals that Midday has called up to support him? No. In fact, practically none were here to do some actual work. Hence why he calls it "Pandora's box" because I, 26oo, and few others will be the only ones left to deal with it following his departure. More importantly, do you mind explaining as to why you didn't notify Midday about this AN/I Buckshot06? You did remember to notify Chuckupd, BrumEduResearch, CordlessLary, and many more. That's quite peculiar since the instructions explicitly state: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". Oddly enough, this isn't the first time it has happened (see the previous filing at Request For Comment). Maybe you simply forgot again? It's possible, but you don't explain last time as to why. AcidSnow (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Middayexpress was informed, User:AcidSnow. I'm not saying that Midday is canvasing off Wikipedia at the moment (that would probably be hard to establish anyway); it's more the implied threat to do so in future that concerns me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies apply to actual Wikipedia editors ("This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline[...] It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). Worry all you want, but I'll be free to discuss whatever I want with whomever I want once I leave the website for good. That's one of the many amusing ironies of this witchhunt :) Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see it now, my apologize BuckShot06. AcidSnow (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
How many other allies has Middayexpress canvassed? bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I could easily post the ample evidence against Buckshot et al., similarly caricature and exaggerate standard contest disputes, ping/canvass select editors like he has, and pick apart his latest rant. But I won't even bother. A vandal ip already tipped me off weeks ago that something was brewing, so this witchhunt is actually no surprise. The ironic part of all this is that I'd been meaning to retire from the website at the end of the summer. However, since Wikipedia is unfortunately no longer what it used to be, now is as good of a time to do that as any. When I joined the website seven years ago, good faith editors abounded. Many of those moved on ages ago to other things; it's time I followed suit and let a new generation of Horn editors assume the mantle. So long, website, and good luck to the last remaining good faith editors among you! Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Attacking other editors is not the kind of answer we had been hoping for. How many other allies has Middayexpress canvassed? bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The reply is worrying too. BrumEduResearch (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, Caution, Notes[edit]

Maybe I was too optimistic in suggesting formal mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom. I had been hoping that maybe the editors were willing to dial down their hostility and work to collaborate on the article. Instead, it seems that some of them want one more round before going to mediation, and there are claims of off-wiki canvassing. The only alternative to formal mediation, now, not later, is community action, which could be general sanctions or topic-bans. Continuing to spar and try to gain position prior to mediation isn't the right way to go into mediation. I suggest that this thread be closed with one of the following: (1) agreement by all parties to immediate formal mediation (not waiting for X or Y or Z and then mediation); (2) community general sanctions; (3) topic-bans on one or more editors; (4) failing those, a formal caution that any further reports at this noticeboard will result in general sanctions or topic-bans. This dispute has taken too much community time already. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am prepared to request formal mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom now. However, other editors (Buckshot06 and bobrayner) have expressed concerns about Middayexpress's editing of multiple other articles. Would separate mediations have to take place for each article if that option were to be taken? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In general, formal mediation is limited to one article (or possibly to one article and closely related articles), although you might ask that at the Requests for Mediation talk page. If other editors have concerns about Middayexpress's editing of other articles, those other articles would need to be addressed with separate content dispute resolution procedures, such as discussion at article talk pages (always the first choice), or the dispute resolution noticeboard, or Requests for Comments, or the other editors can present diffs to show that Middayexpress is a disruptive editor or POV-pusher, if that is what they think, and request community action. Proceeding with content dispute resolution and conduct issues at the same time is deprecated. Do not request mediation if you are also planning to request ANI action, and a mediator will probably decline the case if ANI action is also pending. Are there one or more content disputes, where the involved editors are willing to dial down their hostility and work with a mediator or let the community decide via RFC, or do the editors think that there are conduct issues that interfere with content resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
One possible concern is that off-Wikipedia canvassing or coaching of other editors might interfere, particularly since Middayexpress is now saying things like "Wikipedia's policies apply to actual Wikipedia editors...Worry all you want, but I'll be free to discuss whatever I want with whomever I want once I leave the website for good" and saying that he/she will publicise this dispute in the media. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline against canvassing is about on-wiki canvassing. Do threats of off-wiki canvassing violate that policy also? Is there a policy or guideline authorizing a block for threats of off-wiki canvassing? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, WP:BLOCK allows a block for '..attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.' Personally I believe a block is warranted for disruptive editing and POVpushing in addition to trying to game the system (such as substantive edits concealed by edit summaries of 'formatting'). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have struck my proposal for formal mediation, because it is clear that an editor who is talking about publicizing Wikipedia controversies to the press is not here to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on policy in this area, but could it be covered by WP:MTPPT, which states "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate"? The people reading the press concerned aren't all going to agree with Middayexpress, of course, but the publicity might be written in such a way to attract editors of a similar mindset, particularly if the dispute is described in terms claimed bias against Somalia on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever takes place off the website or not (I think likely well handled by MTPPT), I would like the behaviour exhibited by Middayexpress formally marked. Robert, you've just seen the kind of tactics Cordless Larry, Bobrayner, BrumEduResearch, Chuckupd, StoneProphet (from the earlier RfC) and I have all been concerned of, and these have occurred across multiple articles. Personally I would still like to request a topic ban. This is because one can 'unretire' at any time, and there has been some discussion of canvassing off-wiki. Personally I would request a topic ban from all Somalia-related articles, for whatever the usual duration is (is that six months?). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I right to be worried about this exchange of contact details with AcidSnow? BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. AcidSnow (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This might not be relevant, but Middayexpress's comment suggesting the possibility of future off-Wikipedia canvassing centres around alleged systemic bias, and this reminded me of this discussion that he/she started. Drmies suggested that the discussion was a bit close to WP:FORUM for comfort, and that it should be taken up on a project page. Does anyone know if this happened? I ask because I would expect that if Midday was/is so concerned about systemic bias, they might have tried to raise it at a policy level (I know they posted at Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia, as that's on my watchlist, but that's not a policy page). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban of User:Middayexpress from all Somalia-related topics[edit]

  • Support a topic-ban from all Somalia-related topics, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If Middayexpress is telling the truth here, we have a combination of canvassing, meatpuppetry, and offsite coördination whilst maintaining a convenient veil of "retirement". That's on top of the source-abuse and POV-pushing. Canvassing has been a long-term problem - and, once coached on what to say, AcidSnow was quite effective in derailing the RfC/U of Middayexpress which could have resolved our problems so much earlier. If AcidSnow is happily proxying for Middayexpress then Acidsnow earns a topic ban too. bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, wow, wow calm down. I am neither a proxy or anything similar to that for Midday or any other user. Anyways, as I previously explains, Midday wasn't coaching me as to what to say. All I asked for is what was going on and what exactly does one do here since, as I stated "I would reply to this but I am not really sure how this work". Hence why he replied with: "Thanks. You'd post in the area under Dougweller, where the code instructs to endorse your own post (the top half is meant to remain unsigned). Note that the nature of the process is non-binding anyway; it's informal and cannot impose/enforce involuntary sanctions. It's meant to help reach voluntary agreements". As I asked you twice already last time, can you please explain how these diffs support you? If not, then please drop it. Although I am not sure how you have come to call me out for something baseless, I would like for both of us to move on after this. Ok? AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a topic-ban for Middayexpress from all-Somalia-related articles, broadly defined. Canvassing may also need to be addressed at a later point, possibly including topic bans of other users. I strongly agree meat/sockpuppets may soon emerge. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As an involved editor, for what it's worth, I support a topic ban from Somalia-related articles for Middayexpress. I think we would then need to carefully monitor those articles for signs of puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Robert's proposal for blocking Middayexpress from Somalia-related articles. Will leave it to others to decide if action is required about the possibility of him exerting influence via AcidSnow and others.BrumEduResearch (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not involved, but supporting a topic ban for User:Middayexpress, it is getting worse, not better. Opposing a topic ban for AcidSnow now, but if Acidsnow is a proxy for a banned editor in future, can we come back to this? Spumuq (talq) 12:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with that approach. While AcidSnow seems to share Middayexpress's POV on most issues, he/she has proven more amenable to discussion and compromise than Middayexpress ever has. If there is any sign of puppetry in future, the issue can always be revisited. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Inserting a comment to prevent archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would still like this addressed and resolved - this is definitely *not* an inactive issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - There have been many complaints and ANI threads about MiddayExpress in this topic area and a topic ban is years overdue.[187]-- KeithbobTalk 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Bear in mind that topic ban proposal in 2013 was closed as "no consensus". The only two people who opposed a ban were Inayity, who was canvassed here, and Obiwankenobi, who was canvassed here. The same canvassing brought down the 2014 RfC/U of Middayexpress: [188] [189] [190] [191] &c. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Commenting to prevent this from being archived. It would be good to get more input from more uninvolved editors and administrators. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Middayexpress' conduct on articles relating to Somalia's military and military history has been consistently unhelpful, with their edits showing a clear pattern of bias. As such, I think that a topic ban is well overdue. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - topic ban proposal by User:Robert McClenon. My limited interactions with User:Middayexpress were consistent with the POV and conduct concerns raised by User:Buckshot06 (and others) above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - topic ban proposal by McClenon. I am very glad to read that user:Middayexpress is now "RETIRED", following some investigations (be informed that there it is also a successful investigation on Middayexpress links, that is being done on the website "Memories" of "Mappista59"; read: [192] ) and complaints like this on ANI. A sympathizer of user:Chuckupd. --4Sedge (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would ask that the RETIRED banner not be a basis for taking no action. It is unfortunately not uncommon for a disruptive editor to be RETIRED from Wikipedia for the duration of an ANI thread or other conduct dispute so as to avoid sanctions and then come back. If there is basis for a topic-ban, it should be put into effect in case the editor returns. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


User user:Cjhanley is a former AP reporter whose work earned him a Pulitzer. Unfortunately, it was found to have some holes in it, and he has taken this real world fight to Wikipedia. The author who initially embarrassed the AP team wrote a competing book on the subject and Hanley went so far as to contact the publisher and pressured them not to release it.

Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized.

He has been arguing for nearly 2 years that all of this material should be removed and has begun a large canvassing effort to accomplish this [193]. Interestingly enough, he has pinged nearly every editor I have had even an interaction with on this project. His COI is obvious, but no actions were taken when it was brought to the community’s attention [194].

Now he’s attempting to dig for information about me off wiki as well [195].

His non stop insults about me, and a recent allegation that I am some kind of White Supremacist have put me over the edge though.

Hanley needs to be banned from this article immediately. WeldNeck (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban would seem appropriate in this case. Maybe we could have a vote on it to see if there is consensus to topic ban him. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse a topic ban, but we should ensure that Cjhanley is given the standard advice to biography subjects on how to correct errors of fact (rather than interpretations of fact with which you disagree) without violating policy or damaging your reputation. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban as well, given this user's problematic behavior. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at this diff, it seems like it's another editor, Oilyguy, who is calling you a white Nationalist. Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Liz, @User:JoeSperrazza, Did you see the part of Cjhanley's post [196] which reads "He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism". (This was cited in Weldneck's original complaint.)--Wikimedes (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are kind of obsessed with the subject of cultural Marxism. I don't see him saying the editor was a "White Supremacist". And you are completely ignoring that Oilyguy did say white Nationalist. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right, "some imagined threat to the white race" is not the same as "White Supremacist", but it does seem to be an accusation of racism. (I had not meant to say anything about Oilyguy's comments. Cultural Marxism is completely new to me.)--Wikimedes (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. @JzG, this is not a "biography subject," this is a Pulitzer winning career journalist and book author, a subject expert. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: "subject experts" aren't exempted from the fourth pillar. And the article will be just fine without him, just like any other article subject. ― Padenton|   19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Really? And that means User:Brian Josephson, who has a Nobel prize, is free to promote woo to his heart's content, does it? The problem is clearly and credibly identified. Respecting someone's achievements does not give them a free pass on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I can only assume anyone supporting this idea of banning me from the No Gun Ri Massacre article is not familiar with what has been going on at that article for the past two years, and is unaware that my colleagues and I, along with academic acquaintances, have by far the greatest wealth of knowledge and documentation relating to the subject in the English language. I urge any interested parties simply to review the section "Reader Beware" that was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre to get some sense of the damage that has been done by WeldNeck, at [[197]]. I use the past tense because WeldNeck unilaterally deleted my Talk posting within minutes. Isn't that the kind of offense that warrants a topic ban? In fact, his behavior should have been dealt with by late 2013 by responsible admins. Finally, to suggest that "the article will be just fine without him (Cjhanley), just like any other article subject" is to underline the problem that a huge number of serious people in the world have with Wikipedia, the attitude that "we don't need subject-matter experts; any Tom, Dick or Harry can write about anything." Driving experts away from WP will only deepen its problems. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
  • This edit, seems inappropriate, per WP:TPO. The materiel meets none of the listed criteria that would make it eligible for User:WeldNeck to remove them. The comments very specifically discuss the article and ways that User:Cjhanley feels it should be improved. The revert should be reversed, ideally by User:WeldNeck. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban.
  1. From the diffs presented, the complaints are either unfounded (e.g., per Liz) or don't show edits that are either disruptive or unsourced. He may need some guidance on Wiki policies and procedures, and at most perhaps a mentor for traversing Wikipedia's sometimes arcane rules.
  2. In addition, I also agree with User:Carrite and offer the following rationale. Like it or not, there is a long precedence in WP in allowing competence to trump certain policies, as documented in numerous noticeboard and arbitration cases. Surely, per WP:IAR, if nothing else, it is for the good of WP for the community to engage subject matter experts and help them. We don't want to end up in a situation such as this. I don't mean to say we're there, but let's turn the ship and avoid it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@JoeSperrazza: - you dont see a COI with Hanley and his attempt to exclude a source that embarrassed him professionally? WeldNeck (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the topic ban and I find his choice of days to begin this fight absolutely disgusting. WeldNeck (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
!vote by nom above (stricken). Normally nominator doesn't !vote too. As one of the two parties, seems inappropriate to !vote too. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a ban on editing the article, but not the talk page. Someone with an obvious and significant conflict of interest should not be editing the article. However, talk page suggestions for changes to the article should be allowed and should be evaluated by uninvolved editors. Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Both users User:Cjhanley and User:WeldNeck have behaved inappropriately, in my opinion. COI is a real issue, plus the level of personal attacks by both sides. I present:
WeldNeck attacks Cjhanley's credibility: [198]
WeldNeck deletes an entire section by Cjhanley: [199]
Cjhanley attacks WeldNeck multiple times: [200]
While I initially sympathized with each user for different reasons, I think the conduct is unacceptable. We need uninvolved editors working to ensure quality on this sensitive article. Examining the talk archives, it is clear that this is yet another resurgence of the same dispute from years back, and nothing has changed.
GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that removing his talk page entry may not have been in the best spirit of things, but I am sick to death of the constant attacks from Hanley on me which has now moved onto Hanley trolling outside Wikipedia to dig up information on me. The entire section I deleted has been replicated several times on Hanley's personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. Its the textbook definition of tendentious. I have never edit warred on that article and every significant edit I have made included a explanation on the talk page. WeldNeck (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Further evidence (from the previous debate in 2014):
Personal attacks:[201][202][203]
Another implicit attack on Cjhanley: [204]
My (2015) comment that reignited the whole thing in the first place: [205]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban. Although neither editor is blameless in this content dispute, I think that Cjhanley's apparent belief that he is the only expert on the subject runs counter to the collaborative nature of this project. Miniapolis 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hold Our Horses (is that an option?) See submission on the same article below. I think we're going to try to work this out in talk. Both users at least pay lip service to thinking that it's a good idea. So we're going to take this an edit at a time and see if things will remain civil long enough to get something done. If anyone wishes to volunteer, I would love to have a fourth or fifth commenter that I can ping if needed to the talk to back me up (or tell me I'm stupid...either one works) if this gets (every bit as) nasty (as it has been for two years). So, I apologize for abusing the parenthetical. I suppose you can come over to my talk if you would like to volunteer. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hanley's COI, and canvassing still needs to be deal with. WeldNeck (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
WeldNeck, do you have a WP:COI as well? WP:BOOMERANG (disclaimer: I was canvassed here). nom's vote stricken above. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A large part of this issue is that Weld seems to have rarely sought and (AFAIK) never gotten consensus on his edits. Hanley doesn't seem to understand policy well enough to know that a lack of consensus defaults to no change to the article. So intentionally or unintentionally, Weld has exploited Hanley's lack of understanding to do basically whatever he wants. I have addressed a lack of consensus in no uncertain terms on the talk. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of .... just a love of history and a strong sense of justice. WeldNeck (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
WeldNeck Let me put it another've been or are employed by the US military. Correct? The topic is a historical US military event. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There are 21.8 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces as of 2014, are you saying every one has a COI and cannot edit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Widefox: Are you serious? You think everyone who has ever been employed by the US military has a COI on any military-related article? Do you realize they're generally the only ones who build these articles? Well, I guess it's convenient to declare that anyone who disagrees with you must have a COI, but I don't think you'll have much luck with that one. ― Padenton|   17:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to have other experienced editors as "backup" if things deteriorate. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: 1. logical problem with that argument: big employer ≠ COI, 2. strawman argument: nobody said all military history (and nobody said COI can't edit, or no human can't edit a biography either). Back to the point, see WeldNeck's edit history for pro US military POV-pushing (including a BLP violation) for reporters exposing US military errors. This is the second one I've seen. COI may be a cause, but we don't know as there's (so far) no simple COI statement. Are you saying nobody in the US military has a COI? Valid to ask, right? If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different? Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether Weld has been employed by the military is not really relevant to the ANI. Saying someone who was in the military has a COI isn't the same as saying someone who worked for say Apple has a COI. "If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different?" Not at all. I might be suspicious of someone if they were North Korea military, but that would depend on the discussion at hand. ― Padenton|   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I am also military. If that's a COI then so be it. But perhaps it's important to note that most of the things I've learned about the military, I did not learn because I was in the military; I learned them because I was interested in military history. Not everyone drinks the Kool-Aid. Some people understand that war is bad and bad things happen in war. To anyone who thinks the US military is blameless: Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like a word with you please. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Do us all a favor and climb down from the soapbox. None of these events are relevant to the article at hand. Whether US military is to blame for Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, has no impact on whether they are to blame for this No Gun Ri incident, and whether the US military is to blame for the No Gun Ri incident has no impact on whether either or both of these editors should be sanctioned for their behavior. ― Padenton|   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 3 month topic ban or moderation by Timothyjoshephwood and GeneralizationsAreBad. Cjhanley’s repeated ad hominims against Weldneck on the No Gun Ri article’s talk page need to stop. (Weldneck also occasionally takes a swipe at Cjhanley, but much less often.) In this post, [206], 2 days into this ANI thread, Cjhanley goes so far as to title a section on the article talk page “A brief WeldNeck primer (please do read):”. Additionally, both the article and Cjhanley would benefit from some time away from Cjhanley’s WP:ownership of the article. On the other hand, I’ve found that it is possible to work with Cjhanley, it would be a shame to lose a subject matter expert, and I think Cjhanley is still capable of making positive contributions to the article. So while IMHO Cjhanley has well earned a topic ban, if this is the result I hope that it will be of limited duration. On the other hand, Timothyjoshephwood appears to be taking the talk page firmly in hand, and his and GeneralizationsAreBad’s efforts may accomplish the same things.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, I do not think a block is an appropriate solution. Part of the reason there is a situation is that Weld has consistently made substantial edits when no consensus exits, and has maintained those edits after much argument making it abundantly clear that no consensus exists. He has, in good or bad faith, abused Hanley's lack of understanding of WP:CON. Weld continued to make edits with no consensus after I began trying to moderate, and after being explicitly asked to postpone editing until we can talk things through. It took "you're wrong and at this point I'm going to revert any and all of your edits until to pass them through the talk page" to get him to stop. Hanely has clearly violated WP:CIVIL, but has done so out of frustration with Weld's violation of WP:CON. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No consensus can exist with Mr Hanley as long as you dont hold his POV. I haven't had issues with anyone else on the article and have worked fairly well with them. One user with both a personal and professional interest in the article refuses to consider any material that does not conform with the reporting he has done on it. WeldNeck (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that per WP:NOCON, when no consensus can be reached in proposals to add to or change the article, the default is to not add or change. You have ignored this. If no consensus can be reached with Hanley, the correct action is to draw uninvolved editors to the page to evaluate the arguments, which is what we are doing now. Rather than doing this you have simply added your edits and repeatedly reverted any attempt to remove or change them. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose two opposing COI POV-pushers. Standard COI editing applies. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Demonstrate I have a COI ... we know Hanley does and he has been very public about trying to suppress the work of competing academics. I have also striken your vote because you were (admittedly so) canvassed here. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
WeldNeck, don't strike my !vote, I'm not involved or been asked to come to this page by anyone. WP:VOTESTACK doesn't say to strike. I'm not involved in the content dispute, and have not been canvassed to this page (but possibly to the talk of the article). My full disclosure doesn't mean you (as an involved party) get to disregard an opposing position, just like you can't nominate an action and vote. Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. There's a bit too much drama going on here, but it can be resolved through standard channels, such as NPOVN and consensus on the talk page. Removing just one of the editors would be a bad idea, as it will give the other one free rein. Not to mention that we're discussing topic banning a subject matter expert, as Carrite pointed out. The ideal solution would be for neutral editors to get involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, that there is so much drama here that it has muddied the waters. The only thing that is clearly apparent to me is that Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre has been a battleground between two editors with a handful of other editors trying to moderate the dispute or move past it. This dispute was brought to COIN in August 2013 without any resolution or much of a discussion so I encourage a return to WP:COIN if that is the central issue or a visit to dispute resolution if the dispute is solely over content. Liz Read! Talk! 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I went to DRN, but my report was closed very quickly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The two editors are trying to score points against one another; they've got to get beyond this, if any substantive changes to the article and talk page environment are to be made. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Close. We have at least four third party editors on the talk and we are evaluating sources and proposed edits one-by-one. If we reach a consensus and one or another editor starts a war because they don't like the consensus, then we can return here. By policy we could ban both of them, or we could moderate the issue and reach a strong consensus that will protect the article in the future. I recommend we do the latter. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timothyjosephwood and support Close. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you point out some of these editors or link to a talk page? I see many that were canvassed to the incident by Cjhanley. Wikimedes and GeneralizationsAreBad were both canvassed here: User_talk:Cjhanley#WeldNeck_seeks_to_ban_me. ― Padenton|   23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I was not actually canvassed here, by the way... GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Padenton, I was not aware Wikimedes was canvassed. I honestly have no idea where Irondome came from. GAB and I are doing most of the moderation at any rate. Topic bans seem silly at this point. We've already instituted an informal freeze on the article, that no edits should be made without establishing consensus, and that the person proposing the edit should not be the person doing the editing. See Edit 5 on the talk page where GAB proposed and I actually made the edit. There is no reason to continue this discussion so long as editors are on the page, enforcing and elucidating community standards. If other's would like to join in that's fine, but I think GAB and myself are sufficient at this point to keep things civil and productive. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi I work on COI issues a lot here in WP. In my view. Hanley has a COI here - he has relationships external to WP that affect his editing here - namely his Pulitzer, the attacks on it, and his desire to defend his work. He should not be directly editing the article about that subject nor about himself. So - topic ban is too strong. Instead"
    • CJ Hanley should be instructed to not directly edit the article - only if he violates that, he should be topic banned. Also,
    • CJ Hanley should be strongly warned not to violate WP:OUTING (l this dif is unacceptable behavior)
    • CJ Hanley should bewarned against WP:CANVASSING and
    • CJ Hanley should be urged to read WP:DR and to use those processes, calmly, when he cannot persuade other editors.

I do have questions for Weldneck - it sometimes happens that the people on both sides of a content dispute have conflicts of interest. Your military service was brought up. I agree that this is far too broad a brush. More specifically, would you please answer:

  1. do you have any relationship with the 7th Calvary?
  2. were you at all involved in the events around the Gun Ri Massacre itself, or do you have a relationship with anyone who was?
  3. are you in any way involved in the RW with the controversy over CJ Hanley's reporting?

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No to all three. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that Weldneck. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there's a thin line here between a COI and a WP:EXPERT. I don't think Hanley understood that these things were prohibited by community standards. Just as I don't think WeldNeck saw anything wrong with editing for WP:TRUTH where he thought it was lacking. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasnt editing for truth, I was editing to inlcude all significant POV's which were lacking from the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Case in point. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Cjhanley. BMK (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Cjhanley. An interaction ban would be a good idea, too, because of this kind of digging for personal information to gain leverage. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Strongly support interaction ban. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any ban. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes ? Pldx1 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- cjhanley's attempts to dig dirt on users and canvass for his POV-pushing is uncollaborative and just outright low-down. Author or not, he needs to be topic banned and perhaps briefly blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Again move to close. We are going through a process. A ban on either user will at best delay that process or at worst delegitimize it, as one user will not be able to weigh in on proposed edits. I would remind those here that WP sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. There is no damage control to be done here. At this point neither editor is going to be allowed to unilaterally change the article. Military History has brought three users to this page and we will take care of our own dirty laundry.

Both users lack an understanding of WP standards and we will elucidate them.

Both users are biased. One needs to be taught the difference between hard hitting journalism and an encyclopedia. The other needs to be taught the difference between what is mainstream and what is controversy.

Both users seem to completely lack historical context. This event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to erase Japanese cities until they surrender. It is not unimaginable that a few hundred civilians would be killed. At the same time, this event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to flatten Japanese cities until they surrender. It is hardly a Holocaust level event.

Please let Military History take care of its own and leave sanctions for the point at which they can be expected to be preventative. That point is not now.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Globally blocked User:Michael Kühntopf sockpuppetry[edit]

There is still 2 unblocked sockpuppets of the globally blocked User:Michael Kühntopf. Found them because they were editing in the now deleted article Michael Kühntopf. These sockpuppets are already blocked in german Wikipedia. Sockpuppets are: User:Schweizerfreund[207] and User:Miles & Schnorr[208]. Kind regards Seader (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think no admin has acted here because one of the accounts hasn't edited in over 2 years while the other hasn't edited in over 4 years. Maybe if they return to active accounts, an admin will take action. Liz Read! Talk! 13:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) is getting on my wick. Worse, he seems to be getting on the wicks of people usually far more tolerant than myself. They were blocked by Ddstretch on 27 February this year and then unblocked the next day (Ddstretch again) - " Ok. I will unblock you on the understanding that you'll avoid drama and stop hovering around these drama-fests".

They haven't stopped. In fact, they were right back at it the following day and then retracted with this comment. They were in other AN/ANI discussions on 5 and 9 March but had reasonable cause to be in those, although no real cause for this comment in an unrelated discussion. Nor was there any need for inserting themselves in this one. Some stuff could be avoided but is mostly !voting (eg: this) but I can see no need for their efforts in this (some of which they then retracted). Some of these retractions amount almost to "light the blue paper and retire" situations, although the root cause is probably more akin to Housman's "Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time."

And so it goes on - the above is only the first three weeks after their unblock. Jumping to more recent events, Slim Virgin felt it necessary to comment about KK87's contributions to something at SPI, which seems rather to mirror what they did at last year's GGTF ArbCom case, where they were the second-most prolific contributor despite having no obvious involvement in matters that caused the case to arise. Bishonen had this to say and my note of 27 May was removed without comment. There have been some odd goings-on here over the last few hours, after they had again interjected themselves (AE this time), went over to EvergreenFir to offer support and (as is not uncommon) didn't really understand what they were writing about (you'll see the strikings, which came later). They have also got themselves involved in the current Lightbreather ArbCom case, again without having any real connection and again involving retractions.

Since they will not even acknowledge that they have broken their promise (eg: mentioned by me here, blanked here with nothing said in between), I think it might be best to apply some sort of formal restriction but I'm just not quite sure how to frame it. In vague terms, I'm envisioning some sort of temporary restriction on contributing to non-article/non-user talk pages and from the drama boards themselves (would we need to define them?). Somehow, we would probably need to find a way to limit their drama-based comments on user talk pages also. Maybe start with a month or two and increase it if they breach; reset the clock if they do not transgress in, say, a six month period?

Ddstretch is currently dealing with real-life issues, so I've not bothered them but will drop a standard notification on their page. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, about time he started focusing on content...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, KnowledgeKid wouldn't know about creating content if it came up and smacked him on the face. What I do know is that he will be revelling in the fact that he has a new all singing, all dancing drama at ANI; this time in his name! CassiantoTalk 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Right now I cant really respond in full but I will say that yes I went over to EF's page to offer support, when an editor gets bashed for standing up I do not feel it is right for editors to jump on top of them. The same thing happened to Coffee during EC's last block. If you look at my edit history I have pretty much avoided "drama" (As Sitush defines it, I see drama all over Wikipedia in some form or another) and have stuck to editing articles. The past edits would have to be broken down one at a time for a more detailed history behind them. I am going to be gone for at least an hour right now, I will have more to say when I can get back online. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This might help you - recent edits to the WP space. Obviously, it includes stuff that is entirely acceptable but it also excludes talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good luck with trying to find an appropriate remedy - Knowledgekid87 has very little knowledge in the content subjects they work in. I find that a bit shocking given the length of time in which KK87 has been here, but given the Village Pump discussion about a fan service image.... the drama is not surprising. Though @Sitush: - your comment over at Tenchi Muyo (another ailing page) is the sort of thing which KK87 does in rebuttals at places like Talk:Futanari. No offense, but KK87 tries to be authoritative when he doesn't know anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." comes to mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I know they're weak on basic MOS stuff because I got myself in a scrap at Ani - Imo earlier today while initially looking into what they did do when not on the drama boards. But since I know nothing of manga/anime myself, I can't judge subject knowledge. I hope you are not suggesting that they might be better engaging in drama than in articles ?! - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • KK87 doesn't seem to have read Ani-Imo, or even a full review of the work. MOS issues aside, why would you capitalize Incest and Homosexuality like that? The article is misleading in its description and it seems to have been written by a girl with a complex. I have a hard time believing KK87 wrote this... much less read such a thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? "a girl with a complex"? What is this whole thing about anyways? I need to do a copyedit of the article I know, I have helped others though get to GA class. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I was feeling followed is why, Sitush who admitted he has no knowledge of the subject posted here on the talkpage of an article I had been working on: [209], as you can see members of the A&M project objected to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You felt followed so you undid good changes? That shows a distinct lack of maturity and your own pettiness. I'm okay with whatever decision the community decides - since KK87 has not matured at all since the last time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I admit I was wrong with that revert but I had enough, the second time I undid the edits I asked for it to be taken to the talkpage which in retrospect I should have done first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You perhaps have a heightened degree of concern, then. I have looked at two articles where you had recently been involved because I've been mulling this report for some time now. In both cases I did a bit of work and, yes, I left a note on one talk - not mentioning you - as a sort of general "kick up the backside". I had also mentioned to you that I was considering this report before I went to the Ani - Imo article. Can we get back to the drama issue, please, rather than create still more where it has no basis. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Chris who I have no idea why he is here brought this up, not me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In those edit summaries I stood up for Rationalobserver as she was being unfairly targeted by other editors, she had done a lot of good work improving articles to GA status. EChastain was a great cause targeting editors and was blocked as a sock. As for the last few hours, EC was blocked again for posting in a place he shouldn't have which was on my watchlist, this resulted in at least two editors initially taking issue with it. I made my comment at the ARB case just like others did (who may follow the page) and thought that was that. When I saw editors targeting Evergreen on Eric's page I bit my lip and just posted a note on Ever's talkpage to ignore it [210]. Evergreen ignored the edits made but that wasn't enough, the edits were taken to green's talkpage [211]. Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND editors shouldn't be targeting other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This feeling, the "I have no idea why he is here", is one other editors often have when they see your comments, Knowledgekid. (By others I mean at the very least me and several already mentioned as having left notes at your talk page.) Although your intentions may very well be good - to defend wikifriends - your methods leave a great deal to be desired. You leave too many messages. Someone who is not the focus of an SPI/ANI thread/Arbcom proceeding should generally not be the most prolific contributor to that page. You go to too many pages. It's not necessary to post at, for example, an SPI, the talk page of the person who created the SPI, the talk page of the person who is the subject of the SPI, and the talk pages of those closing or commenting on the SPI. That's spreading drama. It's inciting drama. If you truly feel a friend is being railroaded/accused improperly, you can say so. You don't need to lodge (in most cases unfounded) accusations against others. You don't need to scream conspiracy. You don't need to bring up past events that are only tangentially related. You may not have done all of those things this time, but you have done them all enough. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S., as for your reversions of good article edits because you don't like the person who made them - that is disruptive editing and edit warring and if I ever catch you doing that again I'm blocking you immediately. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This would be hard to define, and hard to enforce, but if it could be crafted better, I'd suggest "KK is prohibited from getting involved in issues that do not directly concern him. To be reviewed in 6 months." Or something along those lines. I have never seen a comment of his in a touchy situation that made the situation better. I don't doubt his good faith, really, but I do not believe he has sufficient good judgement to get involved in other people's problems. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    If you think good will come out of it then I will take the ban, I don't know what issues though in particular I would be banned from. I just want you to know my edits have been in good faith and I don't like seeing others get beaten up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    It's comments like this [212] that are a part of the problem. You are assuming that RationalObserver was targeted and people were acting inappropriately. What actually happened is that RO was acting disruptively, RO was blocked and unblocked, and RO has not acted disruptively since then. People aren't upset with RO anymore, because RO changed her behavior and is focusing on oroducing content. Either 1) you don't understand what targeting actually is, 2) you don't understand what behavior is disruptive, or 3) you don't care about the behavior as long as it comes from a pal...any of those three make me question whether you should be participating in any project-level conversations at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    She was targeted by User:EChastain and a handful of editors who thought she was a sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    Opening that thread at RO's talk page was indeed another example of very poor judgement and I hope that she takes Floq's advice. I'm not sure why you chose to leave a note just there, given all the other people mentioned in the diffs in my opening statement, but it really was a bad one to pick, whether you were canvassing or not. IIRC, Rationalobserver has recently declared a prior user account to ArbCom - I'm not fussed provided that she keeps up the sort work she has been doing recently and in which I had a small hand.

    I'm thinking on Floq's suggestion above. It is a tricky issue, although I do think we have managed to deploy it in the past specifically for AN/ANI - just cannot remember any names. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

    Many years ago, just after I passed RfA if I remember correctly, we did place an editing restriction on an editor - for the life of me I can't remember who they were - which stated that any non-articlespace edit must be directly related to article improvement. I think there was an exception for commenting at discussions (i.e. XfD, RfA). Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My problem here is that "heightening drama" is completely ill-defined. I mean, everyone weighing in on this complaint who hasn't been involved in altercations with Knowledgekid could be seen as involving themselves in drama (including myself). Look at Eric Corbett's talk page since his recent block...there are over a dozen editors criticizing his block, making accusations, all of which is definitely heightening the drama but they are seen as expressing support for Corbett, not drama mongering, even though they all have absolutely nothing to do with his block. Liz Read! Talk! 12:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not entirely true, Liz, but then you have misread things concerning me recently in other matters, which is worrying. My involvement at that talk page is related to his block, as I tried to explain at AE when admins started jumping to conclusions about watchlists. And the drama there is due to a bad block made due to a report by someone who issued personal attacks and was not censured for them. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about any editor specifically, Sitush. Just wondering why messages of support on one editor's talk page (by KnowledgeKid) is seen as heightening drama while in other situations, comments by uninvolved editors are not seen as amping up the drama. And I don't think you can change the point of focus from the individual posting to the subject of the drama (the block) unless KnowledgeKid's user talk page posts are also put into context (being about a subject, not being about him). Liz Read! Talk! 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Knowledgekid is not the only one who frequently stirs drama. If those posting, for example, on Eric's page, are also posting the same comments in 3 or 4 other places on-Wiki right now and are leveling unfounded accusations repeatedly, then maybe they need a similar topic ban. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) all have absolutely nothing to do with his block - I'm one of them, so it isn't all. But this is off-topic, although I'm not surprised to see you raise it given the recent events and your somewhat naive first-ever post at that page today. If you bring Eric Corbett into this thread it will deteriorate rapidly, as you should know. Feel free to collapse this bit or retract. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is Liz is that KnowledgeKid is a talk page tart who pitches up anywhere where there is drama, whilst those who post on Eric's talk keep it to Eric's talk. CassiantoTalk 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about Knowledgekid's article work; I've never run into it, I believe. Their other work is--how do I put this diplomatically--of no use, and serves only to heighten drama in situations they choose to stick their nose. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per Floquenbeam's comment,"I have never seen a comment of his in a touchy situation that made the situation better," and Drmies' comment above that KK tends to "heighten drama," I must concur. KK can pretty much be counted on to stir the pot and increase contentiousness on a regular basis. A look at contribs shows Knowledgekid87 is sitting about about 50% on mainspace contributions versus talk and drama, so a restriction that comments be confined to something combining Black Kite's suggestion and Floquenbeam's would be appropriate. Or perhaps a restriction of one comment per day per topic at talk, also, unless it's an article KK has contributed to prior to whatever drama triggers a discussion. This editor isn't as problematic as a lot of others, but I think an admonition that pot-stirring isn't helping the project might be in order. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (e/c) As the admin who blocked and then unblocked Knowledgekid for stirring up drama (involving Rationalobserver) and then, after extracting a promise from him to just add content and not involve himself in any drama in future, I think I may be allowed to comment here.

    I am deeply sad that Knowledgekid seemed to ignore his promise made, right from the start, and as others have documented above. I did try to reason with him to adhere to the promise made, as did others over time (again as documented above), but to no avail, and so we find ourselves here. Perhaps I should have acted before now and re-imposed the block on him to try to put a stop to his seemingly obsessive behaviour of putting his nose into drama that doesn't involve him? But I was unsure if this could be justified at the time.

    The promise he made allowed for no special cases involving friends of his or any perceived targetting of them, but if one examines the cases where he has involved himself since then, many of them involve disputes involving Eric Corbett or some of his perceived supporters, where Knowledgekid's friends have been at fault. He was, for example, making comments in the latest case that didn't involve him at all, and which led to the most recent block against Eric Corbett.

    The basic issue is that, for whatever reasons, Knowledgekid made a promise that enabled him to have a block removed, and then almost immediately broke this promise and went back to getting involved in drama. He has become untrustworthy, and therefore unreliable even about himself. Whether he lied is a matter only he can know, but if he didn't lie, his behaviour shows such a lack of insight or reflection on what he is doing, that there may be an issue of competence here. To echo what others have said: when he injects himself into disputes, his contributions seem invariably to make bad situations worse. (In some cases, he has acted similarly to those people who shout "jump!" to people wanting to commit suicide by throwing themselves off buildings. In these cases, one wonders just how he thought his contributions were helping his friends.)

    If I had re-imposed the block, I would definitely comment on breaking the promise and its circumstances, and that would mean that, effectively, no real chance of any successful appeal against that re-imposed block could really succeed, assuming that the admin who looked at any appeal considered the circumstances properly. This troubled me and stayed my hand.

    Although we are required to assume good faith, it seems difficult for me to justifiably do so in his case, given his broken promise, and the speed and frequency in which he involves himself in topics that he has no connection with. And this is the more so given the number of people who have referred to his promise in an attempt to stop his disruptive behaviour. He seems so unable to have any insight into this that he doesn't refer to the original promise at all, but protests that he was helping out people he perceives were put upon. This is so inaccurate, especially in the latest case, where, even as this discussion was taking place, he attempted to drag Rationalobserver into this dispute. Rationalobserver has made an excellent reform in their own behaviour since their own problems. Problems in which Knowledgekid also had a big hand in attempting to stir up more drama, and which led to my block of him and the subsequent promise he made to get himself unblocked.

    My own feeling, which may well be biased now, is that Knowledgekid should immediately have the block he appealed against and which I lifted re-imposed. This should show him how seriously we take broken promises to evade a block. It would also be preventative, because he seems completely unable to stop himself, and no amount of assurances he now might make could convince me that he would change in such a short period of time. It would also send out a strong message to others who might be tempted to bait or drive drama. Subsequent to that block being lifted, I suggest that we now decide on strict editing restrictions for him: he should only contribute content; any talk page comments should be specifically about content, and should normally be made on those articles' talk pages. He should be able to contribute to his own talk page, however. If he wants to talk to others, he can ping them and direct them to his own talk page. His talk page should be monitored. Any involvement in drama seen on them should be subject to some kind of action. I suggest that these restrictions last for a sufficient period of time to hope that he matures and gains insight. As I said, I may be biased here because of the sadness I have about his inability to keep to a serious promise he made to me.

    I apologize for the length of this comment.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Ddstretch, we might have to make an exception for the anime/manga project talk page and, for example, for contributions to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with Sitush that KK87 has made substantial contributions to the anime/manga articles that are clearly where his heart is at; it would be "bouncing the rubble" to say he couldn't edit there - as far as I can tell, his contributions in that area have been mostly constructive. Let him do what he does best, then. Didn't WP ban Eric Corbett specifically from RfA and GGTF? If they can do that, I'd say asking KK to stay away from the drama boards, liberally construed, is a doable idea. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. I overlooked his positive contributions to that project page, and to WP:RSN. I don't want to restrict him from any of the pages where he writes content. However, I think we need to be a bit more broad than "drama boards, liberally construed" because a reasonable amount of the stirring goes on on individual editors' talk pages. We could then say "stay away from the drama boards, liberally construed, and additionally stay out of any discussions on any editor's talk page that involves drama (liberally construed) in which he is not directly involved himself." What about re-imposing the block that he evaded by breaking the promise?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about posting here but a few points need rebutting in my view. Let's start by looking at some numbers, and these are only a sampling from pages I'm aware of: KK87 has the highest or second highest number of edits to these non-article space pages, GGTF proposed decision talk, (it's really unusual to see so many comments on the PD talk page), this SPI, (which I launched against RO, more about that to come), and this MFD. None of these had anything to do with KK87 and there probably would have been considerably less heat without their comments. Regarding RO, I launched an SPI, they got exonerated, I apologized. Should have been end of story, but KK87 kept posting to their page that I was out to get them and thus an interaction ban is needed. Samples here, here, here, here, here. That myth needs to be dispelled here, now, on AN/I. Today RO had an article promoted to FA and let me further take the opportunity to extend an olive branch and congratulate everyone involved in that endeavor (I can't do it on their talk pages). I think it was Floquenbeam who somewhere here mentioned that not being able to chat with friends here is a miserable existence, and yep, I agree and understand having been shoved into that type of box. My sense is that Kk87 unwittingly adds heat and won't let go. Even in this thread they've made a mention of protecting RO against the people who are out to get them (that would be me), which does nothing to end any of this. I agree with Ddstretch, Johnuniq, Bish, Floquenbeam - probably have left out a few. Liz accused me of harassment the last time I posted to AN/I, which was enough for this almost-purely-content-driven editor to put up a retirement tag. If 50,000 edits, 20+ FAs, a good showing in a couple of Core Contests, and so on, in the end will only be reduced to being a person who harasses, then that's an example, imo, of the type of disruption KK87 can cause. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Howdy Knowledgekid87. Going into 2011, a mere 39% of my edits were to mainspace, the rest to talkpages. Today, more then 67% of my edits are to mainspace. This huge change in my pie chart, resulted from me clamping down & concentrating on 'gnoming'. Perhaps, this would be a route for you to take. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed (Knowledgekid87)[edit]

I would suggest not reblocking—72 hours would pass quickly and achieve nothing. I haven't seen the current issues, but my observations from several weeks ago confirm the views above that KK87's comments are usually most unhelpful. Translating the proposal to more formal language, how about:

Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all noticeboards and talk pages other than to comment on actionable proposals for improvements to an article that Knowledgekid87 is working on. In addition, any comments or edit summaries by Knowledgekid87 must concern article content and not other editors.
  • Support as above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Could I particularly ask why you jump to an 'indefinite topic ban' of this caliber? As far as I know, KK has never been the result of any sanction of this type and the 'promise' that he apparently broke is not actionable and absolutely shouldn't be held against them. (Reminded of admins who promised to be open to recall but weren't.) I would support a 3 month topic ban of this caliber--though I'm concerned about the prospects of it. They wouldn't be able to report people hounding them or people adequately baiting him because he's topic banned from all noticeboards. I wouldn't want to leave an editor without an avenue for abuse against them. Tutelary (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am open to a topic ban, but per Tutelary I want to be sure I can report things without other editors taking advantage of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If KK kept his nose out of other people's business then he wouldn't receive abuse in the first place. Those who stick their nose into a beehive are going to get more than a nostril full of honey. CassiantoTalk 17:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone here reads you loud and clear and at this point I don't know if you are trying to get a rise or not. Is there a reason why you have been only editing here over the last 24 hours? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldnt want to miss the boat, that's all. CassiantoTalk 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Johnuniq's proposal as worded, especially per Karanacs' cogent posts above.[213][214] Adding a new section header for it. (And, oh yeah, how appropriate to see Tutelary here. Yet another stirrer, only not quite as busy as KK.) Bishonen | talk 14:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment The problem with as worded is that it limits my collaborations with other editors in building articles. I am talking about for example issues that may come up on the A&M talkpage. Does it only have to be articles that I am working on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think any topic ban of this nature should contain a time limit (6-12 months) and an exception that allows him to respond on any topic in which he is directly involved. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • They must be allowed to respond if directly involved. Not sure about the other bit: how often is it the case that "indefinite" does actually mean "infinite"? If it happens a lot then, yes, there should be a time limit. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Indefinite means I would have to go ask an admin directly, I know that it is usually like 6 months right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons explained by others, above. I assume that this would also include Arbcom pages for which Knowledgekid87 is not a party. While I believe there is good faith behind their participation in various disputes, they tend to add little to actually resolving the disputes. A focus on content, rather than contributors would be a welcomed change for all concerned.- MrX 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not quite so strict for now. First, addressing one of User:Liz's comments somewhere above, I don't care about his main space to project space ratio; I'm sure it's better than mine. If someone is being useful in project space, more power to them. The problem is not that he's commenting on things he's not involved with per se; it's in being almost uniformly unhelpful in those comments. Far too often he is misinformed or adds fuel to the fire, and he ends up striking his comments in whole or in part, after the damage is done. he is not alone in this, but he is the clearest example of it I can think of.

    Crafting the wording of something like this by committee is always tricky. I think it obviously needs to include a mechanism for him to report issues that directly affect him. I also feel he shouldn't be prevented from occasional non-content chats with friends, like all of us do; that's a recipe for a miserable existence, and an impossible topic ban. What needs to be prevented is the self-insertion into drama, and the problem is I don't know that he will be able to recognize the difference, and I can't think of a clearcut way to word it. I'd be inclined to say "Don't insert yourself into other people's drama, at AN/ANI, ArbCom, user talk pages, or anywhere else. Try harder to recognize when that is happening. If someone points out you're doing it unintentionally, stop immediately. If you keep doing it unintentionally, something worse will be imposed". And see if that works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that if an editor or admin points out some behavior is a problem, the editor should seriously consider this warning and adapt their behavior, especially if several users indicate it is a problem.
I guess what I was trying to say above, bottom line, is that if the act that is necessitating a ban is the act of going to editor's talk page and posting unhelpful messages about disputes that the visiting editor is not a party to...well, there are a lot of editors who do this or have done this in the past. I know I've received unhelpful comments from an editor chiming in about a talk page argument that they weren't a party to and I'm sure my case is not an exception. And WP:ANI is one big exercise of editors weighing in on disputes they might know little or nothing about. But editors still offer their opinions, both those that are considered helpful and those that are not...which kind this is, I leave up to the reader. Liz Read! Talk! 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

'*Oppose as written I have a problem with indefinite topic bans as a lot can change in 3 months, and I don't exactly trust administrators to give a satisfactory criteria for the removal of an indefinite topic ban--especially if they've had it for a while. I'm sure that within 3 months of a topic ban, he'll be fine--I'd be fine with a 3 month one, just not indefinite. And yeah, someone will counter me with 'indefinite doesn't mean infinite' but I've seen far too any indefinite topic bans without any possibility of any definite one. What happened to month ones? We just skip straight to indefinite without trying any of the more lenient options beforehand? It also offers no ability or exception for KK to report to the noticeboards if someone is doing something to -him- because obviously, that would cause drama that he can't cause himself, leaving him open. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support for only 3 months - Indefinite is not required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I always prefer "per Floquenbeam", as a rule. If that doesn't make the cut I'll go per Johnuniq, provided that "talk pages" is taken as inclusively as possible, including all talk pages except their own. I think blocking Eric for something on his own talk page is BS, and I wouldn't want to exact the same kind of pitiless and meaningless vengeance on anyone else. But Knowledgekid would do well to basically stay the hell away from anyone else's talk page if it's not about content. Also, per Bishonen, generally. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support See way too much of him and his sanctimonious comments at various places. I think he means well, but it gets really annoying at times, and I think he should spent the time on content instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 3-month topic ban per ChrisGualtieri's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban on principal. This is over kill. That said if a topic ban is approved it should definitely have an expiration date of no more than six months. Such a broadly worded ban is very extreme and strikes me as only a step or two removed from an outright ban which I do not think is justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The original proposal. (I mean by Johnuniq.) It seems to me that KK87 just doesn't get it at all. I have seen no admissions of his poor behaviour, or any apology, or any reflection in any meaningful way of his own behaviour at all. Even today, we see questionable behaviour of him in removing comments from this thread: he is not in the position to do this, he should let others do it if they judge it right to do so. If KK87 thinks he can mount a successful appeal against the topic ban, then let us say he can do so only after a three month period has passed, and we can see what, if anything, has changed in that period.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as written. Mainly as per Ad Orientem. It is tantamount to an indefinite site ban which surely is not warranted. Obviously discussions are bound to stray from directly content related items, and it would make his participation here almost impossible. Also support mentorship program as suggested by GoodDay. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we should try the mentorship route, first. I've been through alot of hurdles in the last 3+ yrs & can appreciate the situation KK87 finds himself in. If one has stepped on a lot of toes, sooner or later the feet those toes are connected to, will come back kicking. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A limited duration ban (6-12 months has been mentioned) combined with mentorship (if mentorship is included, I'd be OK with the topic ban being reduced to 3 months). If there's no measurable progress, extend the ban. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Johnuniq . Mentoring is too little, too late. CassiantoTalk 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible rewording of topic ban proposal[edit]

Knowledgekid87 is forbidden from contributing to WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:Arbitration/Requests (and sub-boards) unless (a) he is a party to an action, and/or (b) has prior permission from an administrator. He is also forbidden from commenting on talk pages (other than his own) about actions on these boards, unless (a) and/or (b) above. Restriction is for six months duration, unless there is community consensus otherwise. That is a possible rewording, taking in comments from above. Again it could be modified. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

How would this remedy as it is worded prevent that kind of ankle-biting? Knowledgekid needs to be shown the door, the project is better off without an individual whose focus is first on drama and second on pervert anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who you are as you appear to be editing from a school's address, but anime and manga has a wide scope. As for the comment on Liz's talkpage being an Arb clerk isn't an easy job in general. Seeing she is new at the job I thought a kitten comment would show some encouragement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I will support any ban for 6 to 12 months that strictly forbids KK from posting comments anywhere where they are not directly involved. The slightest excursion should receive an immediate block. Let's face it, KK is everywhere and is a pesky nuisance. If they were born in '87 and have been editing for 6 years there is either still a massive maturity issue or they just don't get it, and handing out kittens isn't going to appeal to anyone's leniency. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • But would you really want to ban him him from the Village Pump? WP:AN3? WP:AIV? WP:ANRFC? WP:RFC? Deletion discussions? There is no evidence he has caused problems in these places. To not specify which particular boards it applies to would be a mistake IMO. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I never indicated when I was born anywhere in my user-page so using that against me I consider as a form of personal attack and possible WP:OUTING. If you are going to make a case against my edits then please focus on what the content was and not this maturity BS. Oh and the whole "If" factor doesn't matter, how does my birth-year matter here anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be a mathematician to work it out KK.[215]. CassiantoTalk 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I had forgot about those old versions but changed them for a reason, in any case what does that have to do with content here on Wikipedia? It bothers me as my personal information is being used in a negative way here that is not constructive to anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung was pointing out that at 28, you should really be acting maturely and not like a mischievous young wippersnapper. Unfortunately, by introducing yourself into arguments that have nothing to do with you, you fall into the latter category. You strike me as being the sort of person who shouts "fight, fight, fight" at school when two students were arguing over who won the girl! CassiantoTalk 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, this isn't about my age or maturity its about my edits if you cant separate the two then please kindly leave. I may have made mistakes in my editing but I wouldn't stoop as low as using someone's personal information against them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This complaint is about KnowledgeKid87's conduct, not his biography. His age or any other personal information should not be a consideration here and unnecessarily distract from focusing on problematic behaviors that some editors apparently see. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid's age is relevant because experience shows that absent severe Road-to-Damascus type life events, adults tend not to change their behaviour. He is 28, and his interactions with other users betray a distinct lack of maturity. If he were 15 or 18, he might still change, but at 28 he won't. The mentoring proposal one section down the page is a noble but futile endeavour. (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Though I have taken no other role in this discussion, Knowledgekid87 should be warned that he is not permitted to remove other editors' comments on this noticeboard, as he has now twice done to the paragraph immediately above (once reverted by the IP, once by me). Dwpaul Talk 00:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I already said I do not want my age brought into this, and the post amounts to nothing, I have already been harassed by another school addressed IP on my talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I and a number of other editors agree with you that your age should not be brought into the discussion, but if another editor attempts to do so, it is on them; you cannot simply remove their comments here on the basis that you have asked that they not bring it up. Dwpaul Talk 00:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't think that linking to Road-to-Damascus type In a discussion regarding edits amounts to vandalism? Normally when posts are off topic or are vandalism in nature they get removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not vandalism. And that you may think it does tends to support the comment that someone made above re: general competence, which was also implicitly supported in ChrisGualtieri's remarks about your article editing. FWIW, I still can't make my mind up regarding the various proposals, and I think your age is irrelevant to dealing with this issue. Had you been a decade or so younger then it might perhaps have been viewed as a mitigating circumstance, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
My article editing is more than just those cherry picked differences though, a few months back I was able to work with other editors to bring an article up to GA. I can accept constructive criticism here but I have seen some posts so far that are anything but. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Would you like to specify here, then, what your thoughts are about which criticisms are constructive, and what you intend to do about them? Try to see how your comments, just now, can be applied directly to your own behaviour that prompted this ANI report. Remember that promises made may not be believed so much as you would like, given what has happened and what you have done with numerous helpful suggestions before we reached this point.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Sitush was gathering material and was going to post this ANI report regardless of the fact so he didn't need to tell me that he was going to in advance. The main complaint here is drama, some discussions editors have been taking things way too personally and that bothers me. Rather than focus on the behaviors of the editor involved I have seen editors go for the throat of the editor involved in anyway they can. So yes I admit that I haven't always been right poking into other people's discussions but as I said above each case should be taken separately rather than having a small snippet of it show through an edit summary. Going through each case instance though I feel is just going to reopen old discussions though. If you want an example of what I find wrong... look at Coffee's block of EC, rather than focus on ways to move forward or for EC to move on, editors slammed Coffee for being an unfit admin, and tore into him in everyway possible, from his edits to his personality. This is what I wish would stop. We have a WP:BLP policy here on Wikipedia, we don't need to bring into discussions about other editors and make Wikipedia about their bios. Discussion about behavior and edit content should take priority and sadly in some cases I haven't seen it this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) Just because you mentioned Coffee here in passing, do you really think it was necessary to place a notice on his talk page here to try to drag him into all this, just as you did to RationalObserver? I will reply to your comments later, but really! does this really help, or just tries to whip up more drama by deflecting the discussion away from yourself. Think harder in future! (addendum: I notice you haven't placed a similar notice on Eric Corbett's page, yet you also mentioned him. However, thereagain, Eric Corbett or his supporters are often the people you post messages about on pages where you have stirred up drama in the past.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Per ANI policy above I have to, Eric also isn't going to be able to reply so in that case I don't know what it would do but could leave a note there too. Anyways, if Sitush can link edit summaries up there to me, can I at least defend my actions with an example of how editors are taking discussions to a personal level? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You mentioned him. I doubt you wanted to open up a discussion about his actions (which is what the AN/I instructions are about), unless you wanted to divert attention away from your behaviour. Furthermore, as of this time, long after my previous message you replied to, I see no notice on Eric Corbett's page informing him that you mentioned him here, even though using your own interpretation of the rules you should have, and you almost acknowledged this. above. It is exactly this kind of drama-inducing and lack of clue that people are getting tired of here. I will write more about the supposed distinction you are making between behaviour and "personal comments" later, after some real-life issue has been dealt with.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Im tired of being dragged through the mud here for trying to do something good for other editors. I have been trying to get back into editing by doing cleanup here and there but it is hard. Once this is over, I am taking this board off my watchlist I can only hope that discussions can focus on the editor and not tear down who they are as a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Stay away from the drama-boards & concentrate fully on content & you won't go wrong. PS- I wouldn't mind welcoming a 'new' gnome :) GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I already took arbcom and pump off my watchlist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps any form of 'topic-bans' is tad harsh & premature, at this time. Seeing as many here, feel that his participation on drama-boards should be curtailed, I'd recommend assigning KK87 a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

People who require a mentor are not supposed to know how the rules work. KK is well aware of the rules and chooses to conduct himself this way, so I'd say we have missed the boat on that one. CassiantoTalk 19:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say your definition of mentorship may be a bit narrow. There's room for mentoring an editor who knows the rules but has trouble controlling their impulses. I'm not necessarily recommending that in this case -- I think KK87's behavior is part and parcel of their personality, and have thought that for a while now [216]. There may not be a better way to force a behavioral change other then the "short, sharp, shock" a ban or topic ban would apply. BMK (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I take your point, I hadn't thought of it like that. CassiantoTalk 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Numerous experienced contributors have attempted to set KK87 on the straight-and-narrow even before their block. There are some examples since the block in my opening statement. It has made no difference - that is why we are here. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Sitush, you should always believe in second chances. People are capable of enormous personal transformations. There are a lot of eyes on this editor and I'm sure further slips will be noted and dealt with it. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
They've had second, third and fourth chances and still do not get it. I wish you were as understanding when you come calling on my talk page, instead of getting the wrong end of the stick as you did. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Your comment does great justice to you in showing your willingness to extend AGF as far as possible, but major changes in one's attitude and behavior don't happen easily and cannot be turned on (or off) like a switch. It generally takes some kind of serious crisis to provoke it, and I think, in fact, that we're doing KK87 a disservice by saying "Change your behavior, now" instead of forcing him into a situation where he has to re-evaluate his behavior, and decide on his own, that it's worthwhile to him to change.
Given this, and given KK87's history, at this time I would support the most strenuous ban than the community is willing to impose. Personally, I think that a site ban of moderate duration might be most persuasive, but if the community is set on a tailored topic ban, I can go along with that as well. BMK (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

i would like to report for blocking for nothing and undo me after i gave more than 5 reliable sources and even 6 reliable books[edit]

hello their wikipedians first of all on this page i said that the herut got moderated with the years and im not being a sockpuppet just cuz i supported something that someone already wrote i gave here i wrote that herut party got moderated and gave7 reliable sources including 6 reliable books and the wikipdia editors still undo it. so what now we need to throw all our books into the garbage and based only about the editors of wikipedia? so the wikipedia editors are god now that know every thing for every thing even more than books? they are humans just like me and humans sometimes can wrong and i gave 6 reliable books. the only reason that im using other account is that you blocked my other for infinity and i dont even have the option to report for unblock. please back my other edit i left 6 reliable books already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoncohen (talkcontribs) 21:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would revert this edit, but it seems this is the second time this users has opened this section. First, no edits were made by this user other than here. Second, requesting block since this user admits to sock puppetry. Callmemirela (Talk) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Er, wow. Number 57 has been blocking (sock, apparently), has been altering protection on the article and also editing it. No comment on the merits of the above but that alone doesn't look great. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
As I noted on the article talk page, anyone is welcome to have a look at page history. It has been the target of a number of socks over the past fortnight (Orcohen45 (talk · contribs), Morbenmoshe (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) etc). Only after it became obvious that this was going on did I actually block an editor and protect the page (I did not block Orcohen45 or Morbenmoshe). Number 57 21:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the recent edits have just been maintenance/clean up after the socks. Not sure about the older ones - does "involved" ever expire? I'll take the content stuff to the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a continuation of this conversation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#hello. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like routine janitorial work to me, on the face of it there's nothing wrong with what Number57 has done here - Wikipedia is not a bureauicracy. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Meh. The account is blocked, but I still can't work out what on earth he's wibbling about. Maybe that's the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The "wibbling" was resolved by me, as per the discussion on the talk page. Basically, the sources are reliable and the point they wanted to make was valid. It was just that admins had gone into auto-revert mode due to socking - Number 57 even acknowledged on the talk page that the point was valid and the sources likely to be, although they hadn't checked them (they were university presses!). There was a query about the location of the information but that is trivial stuff. I'm not terribly happy about what went on, which appeared to be some sort of blind revert even while acknowledging the likely accuracy of the information but, hey, what do I know. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please look at this more closely; some accounts making these edits have been identified as socks of Morbenmoshe, while others are identified as socks of Itaykaufman12. It seems unlikely ypo me that we have two puppeteers making exactly the same disruptive edits, with similar summaries and linguistic failings, and similar user names, and these should probably be combined. See discussion on Bb23's talk page for more details. RolandR (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The administrator User:Black Kite has promoted the violation of WP:NPOV/WP:VAND/WP:DISRUPT policies[edit]

There was already a dispute: in which the administrator didn't take any serious action on it, and instead tried to justify his wrong decision [217], concerning page protection, with a false positive saying that the vandaled editor "have not justified their edits": while the vandaled editor has clearly justified his edit [218] in the talk page as described in the 3RR noticeboard.

The administrator didn't take any action on the unauthorized edit [219] done by the reported user after protecting the page.

All what this administrator did was unacceptable and a disappointment: and he is like to be involved in a conspiracy with User:Ahunt against free content related to the "opinions supporting GNU/Linux" section in the GNU/Linux naming controversy article.

This administrator should be punished for what he did. And the User:Ahunt should get his edits, which violated the WP:NPOV, WP:VAND and WP:DISRUPT policies as described in the 3RR noticeboard section, reverted, if not blocking his account for a period. (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The diffs you provided show nothing inappropriate. What is the basis for the requested punishment? Chillum 21:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It seem the diffs have since been updated. Still, all I see is a content dispute. Chillum 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
What's still not clear here? I think that I'm well knowing what I'm doing when I wrote all that. I want that you understand well this issue to solve it correctly. (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Unauthorised edit? What? The page was only semiprotected, not fully protected so there's no such thing as an "unauthorised edit". Even editing a page fully protected due to edit warring isn't really unauthorised except perhaps when it's in violation of WMF orders, but I'd understand calling editing such a fully protected page unauthorised.. Bad edits sure (although I'm not saying any of the edits were bad), but unauthorised no. I guess at a stretch you could say an edit which violates the TOU, such as paid editing without disclosure is an unauthorised edit but I'm not seeing any suggestion of that. This has all the hallmarks of a run of the mill content dispute with a lot of edit warring, particularly on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW commenting on the talk page rarely justifies edit warring, particularly when the other parties have participated in the discussion. If you can't reach WP:consensus, there is always the many methods of WP:Dispute resolution. While it takes to 2 edit war, if it's a single IP or new editor or SPA, edit warring against a stable version supported by 2 other established editors, people are rarely likely to look favourable on the IP no matter the content at hand (which would usually be irrelevant to any enforcement anyway), except in special cases such as a clear cut BLP violation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:consensus? it wasn't about consensus problem. the User:Ahunt has vandalized the added info without any reason: you can see his edit history and read well the talk page to understand. (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Its clearly not a question of vandalism. I would urge you to retract any claims to that effect. You may have a valid complaint about the decision to semi-protect instead of full-protect, as semi protection should not be used "to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes". And arguably you were having a valid content dispute. But if you keep up with the vandalism claims, how wrong you are about that aspect will remain the focus of the discussion. Monty845 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to criticise the semi protection even if the reasoning behind it was perhaps not the best. It looks to me like both the IP and User:Ahunt went pass 3RR. But at time, the IP hadn't left any comments on the talk page (although they had by the time BK dealt with the EW case) so I'd be a bit more willing to give Ahunt a pass on this one since the later edits they reverted were removing sourced content. (Although I probably would have cautioned them.) The IP keeps changing, whether intentionally or not, so let's little chance to stop them via a block so semiprotection is probably justified to ensure there are no further 3RR violations. The other participants can be blocked if they violate 3RR. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
For that matter, even if there weren't any more 3RR violations, the edit warring had to stop, so again we get to the problem that the IP can't be blocked, the editors can't be. Full protection is an option, but with only 3 parties involved blocking is another IMO. While it is often fair to block all parties involved in an edit war, in this case given the reasons I've highlighted earlier, the IPs edits were always likely to be viewed more negatively without considering the content. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Of course it's about consensus. That's how wikipedia operates. You're trying to make changes. Two editors disagree with these changes. You need to come to consensus on whether or not these changes should be made. If you can't come to consensus with only you 3, you should seek help via some means of dispute resolution. Since you are the one making changes rather then the other way around, per WP:BRD you should wait until there is consensus for making the changes (which doesn't mean other editors can just say there's no consensus so no changes without much effort to reach consensus). Although even if you were trying to revert to the stable version, it's still no excuse for edit warring on your part. And calling content dispute vandalism is a sure way to make people think you are in the wrong (although I don't think you were the only one who did that). Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Finally you named User:Ahunt at least twice, and linked to them without naming another time in your complaint, but only notified BlackKite of this ANI thread, so you'fe failed to carry out the notifications which both edit heading and the heading of the page clearly tell you to do. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
the issue is not just about User:Ahunt, I just refered to it to talk about the related issue which is itself related to what User:Black Kite did, no more nor less. (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be missing my point. As the big orange box says when you are editing this page, and the red text says before you edit, you need to notify anyone you bring here for discussion. If there is more than one editor, you need to notify all of them (there are very rare exceptions such as with multiple socks, in those case you should at least mention that you didn't do so). It doesn't matter whether the issue isn't just about one editor, your comment clearly discussed Ahunt's editing and even named them so they should have been notified. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
To give an example, as I mentioned Ahunt's editing myself in a comment above, I have now made sure they were notified about this discussion. This means you don't have to notify them any more, but please remember to do so in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Kinda strange this IP account's first edit was this AN/I action. Perhaps this is an attempt to get back at Black Kite for something? Not anything conclusive, just saying it is suspicious.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything that suspicious here. The IP has been edit warring under several IPs on the GNU/Linux naming controversy for a few days now. They took a case to WP:AN/EW which BlackKite closed but didn't go the way the IP wanted. Their complaint is meritless, but it seems fairly unlikely the IP got involved in a dispute on a page in the hope they could bring a EW complaint which would be dealt with by BK, which they could then use to further their grudge with. Rememeber there's no way they could even know BK would be the one to deal with it. I guess they could have tried to time it very carefully, but that seems a bit pointless when there are surely easier ways to further a grudge. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is almost as lame as the CO-founder debate on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


If the accusations are correct and this IP is just trying to get back at Black Kite, I think some action should be taken. the IP has clearly showed a battleground mentality. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a set of observant eyes will be enough. Chillum 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:@Weegeerunner: Your lack of well-discussing is showing here: you are both choosing street slang like "grudge", "battleground" and not well-respecting others. Also, you should try to discuss things the right way so this issue can be solved correctly, instead of saying false positives the next time. (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Give us a reason to respect you. Your actions have gotten the page protected, and instead of discussing the changes you wish to make further, you instead open this thread and attack the administrator who protected the page. I am finding it extremely difficult to AGF to a user who does not. I suggest that you find good reason to support why you think sourced content should be removed from the article and replaced with unsourced information that is little more than POV. Granted that it may be the POV of the founder of Wikipedia, but it is still a POV, and is not even an official statement. If you can find an official statement by Jimbo Wales (official meaning off wiki), then it should be included into the article, however, the sourced information removed from the article should be left where it is.
  • Support BOOMERANG - per IDHT, CIR, NOTHERE, BATTLEGROUND, and failure to AGF. -- Orduin Discuss 18:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
You have convinced me to change my mind. I support a block of the user behind this IP(even if they change IPs) for at least a week until they learn how to work in a collaborative environment. Chillum 18:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
41: Um right, but I never used any of those words or any sort of "street slang" in my comments to you (unless you count those which were vital you understand like "consensus" which I linked to). I did mention in reply to another editor why I didn't think this started as a grudge. But frankly grudge is an ancient English word who's meaning here is the same as elsewhere and not "street slang". And even if you didn't understand my comment, it didn't really matter because my comment didn't really matter to you. Nor did I say anything about false positives. (Although I did explain why I didn't think you were explicitly targetting BlackKite when I mentioned grudge.) As for not respecting, I feel I have you as much respect as I deserved. I attempted to clearly explain why your editing was a problem. The fact that you didn't appear to take any of this on board, is unfortunate but I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of respect on my part. If I did respect you, I wouldn't have spent my time explaining why your editing was problematic and what you can do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: ... Maybe it was a misunderstanding. (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomarang - for lack of competence in English, if nothing else. (Seriously, for BATTLEGROUND, NOTHERE, IDHT.) BMK (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Orduin: You are a rude guy: let your words "Give us a reason to respect you" for yourself, I'm ignoring you.

To make it clear for all, I just started this thread to let the board of administrators know about the wrong decision the admin did which should get some punishment: but now I understand all about these non-honnest administrators involved in this board who were not doing their job as it should be: and maybe wanted a cash instead, and that this wikipedia is like to be an american product promoting the unjustice. To end, I don't care now about what decision this board will get, and I even don't think of getting back to this "Non-free Encyclopedia" again for reading nor for contributing. (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OH NO!!! We're sorry, we're really really really REALLY sorry! Really!!! Don't go, we don't mean to be bad, it's just that mummy never loved us and daddums ran off with the plumber after we had the upstairs bathroom redone, and sometimes we just can't help ourselves. Please stay, we realllllly need you! (Really!!!) Wikipedia is going down the tubes like a lubricated ... thingumbob ... going down a ... pipe-like ... thing. (I'm so upset I can't think properly.) If you go, I don't know if we'll be able to make it. Have pity on us, we're just poor benighted geeks sitting around in our pyjamas trying to make sense of the world. Oh... woe is Come back, Shane, come back! BMK (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(Aside to any admin with a bit of common sense: please indef range block this troll. BMK (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC))
Can we make this the new "poster child" for "assume good faith"?!!... (This definitely smells like "trolling" to this non-involved editor...) --IJBall (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would just indef all of the IPs and log the socks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that the editor has also used the IP Special:Contributions/ I don't know why as these both belong to the same ISP, but it's possible or even likely a single range block will only cover half the IPs. Personally I would just close this discussion and hope they bugger of as they seem to be an WP:SPA and with the page being protected they have little to do other than to continue discussion on the article talk page. (If they do reopen this thread, perhaps it will be time to block.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The very idea that Black Kite is involved in any conspiracy and should be 'punished' for just doing his job is so ridiculous that it could only come from a user with a vengeance and an Internet Provider that issues dynamic IPs every time the user goes online or uses a celluar mobile device. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh hello, I've been away for the weekend, so sorry for arriving late to the party. I semi'd the article because the IP, under various guises, was removing sourced information and substituting a section sourced to a talkpage post that Jimbo made over six years ago. Apart from the fact we don't use Wikipedia as a source, it's only reliable for Jimbo's opinion about a Wikipedia page, not for the actual subject itself. Removing sourced and relevant information without any rationale is vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, so given that it would have been impossible to block the IP without rangeblocking a couple of quite significant ranges, I went for the semi. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaco the 3rd unreferenced articles and untagged files.[edit]

Jaco the 3rd (talk) is creating articles and uploading files at a very frequent rate, see his contributions, I have not been able - due to their sheer number - to go through all of them but a majority (possibly all) have no references whatsoever (against WP:VERIFY) whilst the files have no copyright information (WP:FAIRUSE). The content itself is barely enough to constitute a stub, mostly taken from the subject's website (also breaking WP:ORGIND) sometimes complemented by unsupported claims (against WP:ORIGINAL). I don't believe it would do any good warning him of his conduct, he has received a litany of notifications about his actions on his talk page (speedy deletion, license tagging...), all clearly explaining how he needs to organise his edits, yet his modus operandi is exactly the same. He has already been banned in September 2013 for block evasion and edit warring, another ban might be too light a behaviour rectifier, I'll let administrators decide what they think should be done, for my part he should be made to stop editing in that way, either by respecting guidelines or being blocked/banned. I have signalled this here as due to the sheer number of information written, again none of which is referenced, untruths are bound to have been created on Wikipedia, I have not seen anything libellous but again I have not been through all, the cleanup is just not worth whatever genuine information is provided, furthermore there is the issue of using copyrighted images without justification. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't notify Jaco the 3rd about this discussion, ArmstrongJulian. I have now done so. DES (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I see lots of templated notices on Jaco the 3rd's talk page. But I don't see any atempt to actually discuss the issues with the user. Maybe it would be fruitless. But it would be nic to try a bit. I have posted to his/her talk page tryoing to explain at least some of the issues, and linked to this thread. DES (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugh – the 'level 1' (e.g. =Title=) headings on that Talk page are irritating (and not supposed to be used like that, per MOS:HEAD...). --IJBall (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Upon telling this user that his trivia doesn't belong on an article I was met with the following personal attacks:

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 16:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and user page vandalism, actually. Block requested. I gave my own warning. Wait for further action from an admin. Callmemirela (Talk) 17:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I've removed those comments left on your talk page. -- Orduin Discuss 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems like given these personal attacks, Toeknee44 should receive a temporary block. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My trivia? I added a fact to a page yoy created and then you began re editing it again and again and again. Before when i added information on a page u decided was yours u deleted all of my adds and then re edited all of my adds. Lol. You get so mad when somebody edits a pafe u claim. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toeknee44 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look at those diffs, you won't see any addition of useful information, you'll see name calling and insults by you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Buddhist Brâhmans[edit]

User blocked; articles speedied; SPI closed. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Saint Tapasya has created Buddhist Brâhmans. This appears to be an article which has been repeatedly created and deleted under various names (see Buddhist Bráhmans and Buddhist Brahmins) all of which were created by Buddhakahika and/or his various socks. There is a very good chance this is yet another sock as it was created two days after Buddhakahika got indefinitely banned for using socks. Helpsome (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was already searching my memory for the name... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
SPI opened again Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar[edit]

I would like to alert the Senior Wikipedia Administrators to evidence that user User:Taeyebaar is manipulating a series of Wikipedia articles towards a specific viewpoint - and in the process has improperly targeted users, businesses, Wikipedia editors old and new over several years - but much more acutely in recent weeks.

Although there are several examples, I would like to use the example of the Arrowsmith_School article. (Previous examples exist on this noticeboard for other pages).

The total edits on the Arrowsmith page are clearly biased towards adding and maximizing the information about "skepticism" on this page. Out of these 137 edits to date by user Taeyebaar (30% of the edits to the page), clear and undue weight has been presented surrounding skepticism of the program in relation to the other information on the page. This user is also clearly connected to the edit histories of IPs and (which made most of the skepticism edits until both disappearing suddenly when user Taeyebaar was created, as well as having similar editing history and shared relationships, so obviously connected), which is a further 135 + 11 edits (32%) - for a total of 62% of the edits to the Arrowsmith article - almost all in the additional/tightening of "Skepticism" by this user. (The user has been accused previously of multiple logins under the IPs in question).

Instead of focusing on information relevant to the program for Wikipedia's readers - the page has been modified so as to focus on Taeyebaar's skepticism of Brain Training programs in general. In fact, the edits appear to be designed to to do harm to the Arrowsmith business.

Some stats, for your ease of monitoring (note the edit headings);

Many of the edits are highly suggestive and editorialized, implying a specific viewpoint. Some examples;

  • To help herself, Arrowsmith Young developed cognitive exercises that she claims help (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
  • A lot of doubt and criticism has emerged (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
  • lack of evidence of change in learning skills as well as the high costs. (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized without sources)

This isn't appropriate editing behaviour on Wikipedia. It is clearly an attempt to damage the Arrowsmith reputation as opposed to providing a well written, balanced article for Wiki readers.

  • This user has taken a similar approach to many other Brain Training Programs, including Cogmed, LearningRX, etc.
  • A number of users have reported Taeyebaar, whose voices have been drowned out by Taeyebaar'sbetter knowledge of the system (primarily through accusations of sockpuppetry). Attempts to communicate with Taeyebaar on their talk page have been deleted by Taeyebaar. The user refuses to collaborate or have open discussion.
  • The user has repeatedly posted notices directly on administrator pages and Administrator Noticeboards to undermine other editors.

Taeyebaar's Connection to the Loudest Critics, Dr. Siegel[edit]

It also appears that user Taeyebaar has a connection to and specific knowledge of an individual whose commentary forms much of the content of the Arrowsmith page - Dr. Siegel. Evidence exists to suggest that they are connected to Dr. Seigel, a vocal critic of the school listed on the article.

  • Dr. Siegel is a known and active critic of the Arrowsmith program. On the Wikipedia article, said user has greatly weighted the article with criticisms from Dr. Siegel. In fact - the article now has more information about Dr. Siegel than about Barbara Young - the founder of the program. Dr. Siegel has been accused of crossing the line of libel before (see the references added by Taeyebaar in the article). There is no reason to have this weighted diatribe on this page - except to undermine Arrowsmith intentionally.
  • The user has intimate knowledge of all external sources critical of the Arrowsmith program, far beyond "normal" research. This implies intimate understanding of the subject matter and personal relationships with individuals listed on the page.
  • Of the three Loudest Critics of the program (Dr. Siegel, Max Coltheart and his student Anne Castles) - user Taeyebaar created Wikipedia pages for the first two, but not of the third (Dr. Siegel). When a page was created for Dr. Siegel - said user made minor edits to the page within a few hours (and had recommended others edit it immediately instead of doing it themselves, as noted in their talk pages). As this user is adept at managing Wikipedia through it's policy's (banning and reporting users regularly), and has edited dozens of other pages - it implies that this user is "connected", and didn't create the page originally out of an attempt to maintain neutrality.
  • It is clear (for example in the documentary cited, where Dr. Siegel "is the only vehement critic of the program") - this individual is one of the few people who is compelled to add such an overwhelming amount of criticism to the Wikipedia article and other articles of its nature.

This is all circumstantial evidence given the nature of Wikipedia, but is compelling nonetheless.

Whether or not the individual is directly connected with Dr. Siegel or not, they are certainly aggressively advocating one viewpoint. Either way, their actions are still consistent with lack of neutrality by this user.

Wikipedia Users Targeted by Taeyebaar[edit]

This user has also improperly targeted many other users on Wikipedia, in some cases to the point of getting them banned or leading them to quit. They have leveraged their knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations to manipulate articles about Brain Training towards their own opinions. The Wikipedia editors have focused (rightfully so) on the actions and reports of Taeyebaar, not the edits to the article. However, this has enabled Taeyebaar to continue to edit and control various articles and continue to add skepticism to various articles to promote their own opinions.

Taeyebaar has had bans attached to all of the following editors who have attempted to provide balance this on the Arrowsmith article alone;

  • User:StarbucksLatte (the person who brought this matter to my attention, got them banned)
  • User:Wiki-shield (an unknown psychologist from Toronto, got them banned
  • User:Mishash (unknown individual, got them banned - possibly from the same office as Wiki-shield)
  • User:Eaqq (since given up editing on Wikipedia)
  • User:Brunasofia (since given up editing on Wikipedia)

These users were all accused of being "sock-puppets" by Taeyebaar as soon as they made improvements to the articles Taeyebaar has been "controlling". The individual also reverted all edits of several experienced editors who made edits to the article;

Their edits were reverted without discussion or collaboration - one attempt to edit met with the feedback from Taeyebaar "Oh no, you don't". These experienced editors have now "stepped back" from editing the article as per Wikipedia's spirit - and the article is no longer being collaboratively managed by Wikipedia editors but exclusively is being used to espouse Taeyebaar's critical opinions of the subjects in question.

IMPORTANT - The user has currently advocated for a block on editing the article now that it has been significantly weighted (User talk:Zad68). Obviously, the user is happy with their unbalanced negative weighting of the article, and would like future edits/improvements to stop.

The user Taeyebaar has also made similar edits to various articles in the brain training space. When questioned about it on their talk page, they simply deleted the discussion (

These articles include:

All with what appears to be a a strong goal of promoting a singular viewpoint (that Brain Training is definitively pseudoscience).

Taeyebaar has made a number of repeated posts to get users banned, posted to numerous Administrator pages asking for bans/blocks/etc., posted numerous complaints to Admin boards, etc. - all without engaging or openly discussing on their Talk page (or the user Talk page). This is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia - a place for all neutral editors.

Violation of Wikipedia's Policies[edit]

This user has violated the spirit of Wikipedia in many ways - but even more so, violated core policies;

  • Taeyebaar, as noted above, has a clear viewpoint (against Brain Training). WP:NOTOPINION
  • Taeyebaar, as noted above, has intimate knowledge of these programs and therefore is likely to be deeply connected to the sources. This is clearly an individual with a conflict of interest. WP:CONFLICT
  • Taeyebaar clearly has the opinion that Brain Training programs are "without merit" WP:OPINION, and leverages the rules to accomplish the telling of their viewpoints.
  • Taeyebaar exclusively adds undue weight towards their critical viewpoints towards almost Brain Training Programs WP:NPOV
  • Taeyebaar has added many additional opinionated statements (for example, statements relating to "high cost", and "many people's opinion's), in order to promote their viewpoint WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • Taeyebaar is not acting collaboratively, where "articles should not belong to any one person". WP:OWN
  • Taeyebaar is concentrating on the negative aspects of the programs exclusively, to the detriment of all of the information about these programs on Wikipedia. The information presented is from a connected individual and is not neutral. WP:WEIGHT
  • Taeyebaar isn't engaging on the talk page, but rather just making direct edits to the page, and undoing anything else added in conflict with their opinion. WP:EDITCONSENSUS
  • Taeyebaar repeatedly edit-warred with senior admins and newbies, and managed to get this overturned through sock-puppet accusations WP:EDITWAR
  • Taeyebaar repeatedly uses accusations of sockpuppetry when someone edits articles they don't like WP:LAWYERING
  • Taeyebaar has had numerous individuals banned as sock puppets who were new editors, trying to help balance opinions and clean up editorializing. WP:NEWBIES

Taeyebaar is clearly using the system WP:GAME to accomplish their goal of undermining public perception of neuroplasticity-based products, programs and software. This is not the act of a group of editors working collaboratively. It is a single person's viewpoint being promoted - on all of the articles Taeyebaar has edited.

As there is notable and valuable information on various articles that this person has had deleted, they are clearly not an unbiased, good faith editor.

Past Behaviour[edit]

This user has a history of similar improper behaviour surrounding the subjects of dyslexia and (completely unrelated) subjects around various subjects. (Same user*)

  • Warned for edit warring on the subject of "dyslexia"
  • suspected "multiple editors objecting to your misuse of tabloid sources to push your POV about dyslexia"
  • "repeatedly reverted to their own opinions of dyslexia"
  • Blocked from vandalizing "animal testing"
  • Warned for edit warring on "Indo-Pak Confederation"
  • Warned for edit warring on "Backstreet Boys"
  • Involved in edit war on "Hain_Celestial_Group"
  • Found switching back and forth between user accounts
  • Recent connection: Several communications between user Mad_Hatter (recently and in the past) between this IP and Taeyebaar.

This user has also been previously accused of lack of collaboration - "A half dozen editors have disputed Taeyebaar's edits. None have supported them." (

What's next?[edit]

I leave it to your better understanding to suggest a recourse of action. At the very least - the Wikipedians who have been banned for their contributions to articles "under Taeyebaar's control" should be re-considered as editors (and perhaps more research into additional user actions on other articles should be undertaken). At the very least, someone impartial and senior should edit these articles to return them to impartiality and a neutral point of view. Or alternatively, control should be returned to the collaborative space for multiple editors to achieve consensus on the various Talk pages and make future edits accordingly from there (read: don't allow Taeyebaar to edit articles in this space - ban them from all associated articles). Thanks in advance for looking into this matter, and sorry about the lengthy post.

Sean Stephens (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things
@Amortias: A couple of things:
  • In the sentence "An admins an admin there aren't levels of administrators," the first "admins" is short for "admin is", and therefore takes an apostrophe: "An admin's an admin...". Further, "arent" is a contraction for "are not", and therefore also takes an apostrophe: "aren't". Finally, as it is a sentence, it needs a period at the end.
  • In the next sentence, "restructruing" is misspelled; the correct spelling is "restructuring". The word "its" is short for "it is" and needs an apostrophe: "it's".
  • After a fellow editor has just presented a complicated situation in a coherent fashion, telling them to go read TLDR is rather insulting.
  • If you're planning on "correcting" someone's post on Wikipedia, you had better be damn sure that you don't make a bunch of stupid mistakes when you do so.
  • You neglected to sign your post, but an important person like you, who doesn't have the time to read about someone's problem (but does, apparently, have the time to "correct" them), probably just didn't have the time to do so.
  • It might be worth reading WP:DICK, and then restructuring your approach to commenting. Alternately, you could just keep your mouth shut and not say anything if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.
BMK (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A little harsh, don't you think? There were other ways to comment about what Amortias (not sure if I typed it correctly) wrote instead of "shut your mouth". Personally, I do agree that Amortias did not pay attention to the report at all and seemed to only focus on "senior admins". However, there were other ways to explain what you said in other and better words. Frankly, I would consider what you've written, especially in that tone, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No, not harsh at all. Too many people seem to think that posting "TLDR" is a sufficient response to what may be, after all, a complex situation, and that impulse needs to be sharply discouraged (as does the impulse to say "XXXXX is thataway" instead of dealing with the problem: the correct response is to deal with the problem to the extent that one can, and then say "BTW, next time you can go to XXXXX"). There certainly are "wall of text" complaints, and if they are poorly structured, formatted, and written, they may justify a response of "TLDR", but this was not one of them, and Amortias' reply was, in my opinion, a total knee-jerk, compounded by poorly written advice. BMK (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, something is either "a little harsh" or it's a personal attack. Those trains don't meet. BMK (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I Spinoff? I know it's long, but it shows a pattern which goes back years by a specific user. Always genuinely eager for suggestions from more experienced admins. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems odd to me that this editor, who stopped editing in 2013, would suddenly come back and file this report, while having no recent interactions with Taeyebaar, or any at all as far as I can see. As well, Sean Stephens has made arguments that involve knowledge of Wiki policy that seems completely misplaced when referring to WP:SPI. The arguments by this user would have us believe that Taeyebaar has been the prime reasoning behind the banning of some sockpuppets, however anyone familiar with SPI knows that Checkusers determine who is to be blocked, rather than the filer. And, anyone who has cited wiki policy would also be sure to read about SPI processes before making claims such as these. It could be that he did not feel that the reason to the socks being blocked was worth a deeper look. (Which would then make his argument shallow). But, this whole thing is producing some noise that I can't quite place. Anyway, FYI Sean Stephens, all the users you have listed that were 'banned because of Taeyebaar' were banned for legitimate reasons, not the control of one editor. These should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again for any reason. Socks of these accounts should be put back in the drawer. -- Orduin Discuss 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec)Comment - At this point I don't have an opinion about Taeyebaar because I haven't examined the issues closely. But Sean Stephens, you have made one very glaring false assumption. Taeyebaar didn't get anyone "banned". The editors you name above got themselves permanently blocked because of very inappropriate behavior; in fact, three of them have been confirmed as the same person (sockpuppets). As for those who "gave up" editing, do you have any clear evidence other than speculation as to why they "gave up"? Lots of people stop editing for a lot of reason. If your other evidence against Taeyebaar is as weak as your arguments about getting editors "banned", you need to rethink this entire report. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
After reading other responses to Sean Stephens, I agree it is odd that he returns after a two year absence to point the finger at someone who recently came into conflict with one of the socks mentioned. Could we be dealing with a WP:BOOMERANG situation? A sock investigation might be in order. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I have recently awoken from a long editing slumber by someone who saw me speak on the value of Wikipedia's neutrality and collaborative practices. Her user account User_talk:StarbucksLatte was banned as a sock when she created a private account after reading the book "The Woman Who Changed Her Brain" and noticed the abundance of negative comments on the related Wikipedia article. After looking into it, she noticed the user Taeyebaar had edited highly politically charged articles (e.g. "Jihad Watch" and "Iran-Pakistan Relations"), and didn't want to use her normal editing account given the inflammatory editing history of the individual. When she started editing the article under this account, she was "confirmed" as a sock, though she wasn't the individual with the inappropriate behaviour - and now she has quit. For the record - I'm happy to start a sock investigation on myself, if you'd like. I've used my real name here, I'm not hiding (but admittedly, I'm not a particularly experienced editor either). I am behind this report to maintain my assertion that the Wikipedia collaborative process works - even for the lay-editor. Who wants my phone number? Sean Stephens (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this report should be reformulated but the issue remains. I would have made this report myself if it wasn't done already but real life keeps me busy. The issue of socks is independent of the issue. In no way does completely ignoring the rules of Wikipedia and then trying to pass it off as a problem with socks make it justifiable. User:Taeyebaar has clearly taken ownership of Arrowsmith School and refuses to discuss any changes on the talk page. I have left it alone for now as there appears to be no end in sight for his edits and reverts so there is no point in 2 of us being banned for violating WP:3RR. I'm at a loss to understand the point of your comments about the person who made the report while completely ignoring the subject of the report. Can we address the issue and not the players?--Daffydavid (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never edited in this area and am not familiar with Taeyebaar but I don't think suspicions about the OP should preclude consideration of this incredibly lengthy complaint. At the least, it should be seen whether a COI exists regarding the use of Dr. Siegel as a source. I think it is WP:UNDUE for an article to be primarily composed of criticism rather than facts about a company or organization like at Arrowsmith School. But clearly looking into this in any detail will take some time. I look forward to hearing from Taeyebaar. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, regardless of the unhelpful originator of this thread, I see ownership and POV pushing on the part of Taeyebaar. As I found the article, most of it was dedicated to attacking the subject, with the "Skepticism and criticism" being larger than the rest of the article (5018 characters of skepticism and critism, vs. 4629 in the rest of the body), so I chopped a bunch of completely unsourced content and removed content published in news media articles, which being news media, aren't vetted by experts in the field. I then cleaned up a poorly written chunk discussing reliably-published criticism from some Australian neuroscientists, adding commentary from the neuroscientists in place of a couple of paragraphs that basically said "these scholars have opposed it" and spent only half a sentence discussing what they'd actually said. The result? Wholesale reversion: restoring the paragraphs of unsourced and off-topic criticism, removing the information about what our Australian friends said, restoring the non-scholarly publications, restoring the article to being heavily weighted against the subject. Not at all neutral, especially when you keep it up by going way past 3RR edit-warring with other editors a few days later. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have no idea whether the rest of the OP's complaint is valid, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mishash/Archive where User:StarbucksLatte, User:Beardocratic, and User:Wiki-shield have all been blocked as socks of User:Mishash by the closing administrators. Voceditenore (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore - I can't help but notice that you also edited the article for Dr. Siegel with Taeyebaar, within a few hours of the page being created. You were also invested in accusations of sockpuppetry for the users above. Are you connected to Taeyebaar or Dr. Siegel? Or is this just circumstantial? (Not trying to be a jerk or wear a tin hat, I apologize in advance if I am off the mark here - you seem like an experienced, neutral admin). Sean Stephens (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not aware that I was ever accused of being a "sock-puppet" by Taeyebaar, or any other editor for that matter. Would appreciate see diffs where anyone made that accusation. Looking at the article history, my edits were limited to reverting WP:CUTPASTE moves, and ensuring that proper procedures were followed to determine whether the article should be titled Arrowsmith School or Arrowsmith Program. I would be interested in seeing diffs where positive information about the school or program from third-party sources was being removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this complicates things even more. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Regardless of whether or not the complainant is a sock the issues raised are the same as I would have raised. Why is no one addressing the completely blatant violation of WP:3RR? Is the consensus here that Taeyebaar can do whatever they want with no consequences?--Daffydavid (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No Daffydavid, you haven't missed anything, except perhaps a little patience. The issue will be addressed in time; sometimes it takes a while. The OP's report justifiably raised a lot of red flags, and it turns out those of us who were concerned about sockpuppetry were correct. And I agree with Liz's comment that a report by a sock with a vendetta complicates the situation. If you have concerns about 3RR, feel free to take it up at WP:3RRN. In the meantime, let's wait and see how the issues with Taeyebaar turn out. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
And not just a sock, a block-evading sock of an editor indef blocked as being WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. That throws an entirely different light on the allegations. BMK (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If I've parsed the data correctly, Seanstephens stopped using his account in October 2013, then created Beardcoratic a week ago to post complaints about Taeyebaar on AN and got indef blocked for it within a couple of days, so the editor went back to using Seanstephens. Clearly, this person has a thing about Taeybaar, but if his complaints are legitimate, he has reduced the chances of something being done about it substantially by his own misbehavior. BMK (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree BMK. The editor might have been a sock account but that doesn't mean this incredibly detailed case should be thrown on the bonfire (that is, archived into oblivion). We can "shoot the messenger" but that doesn't mean that the message is meaningless. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Since I am preoccupied with real-life matters, I am going to make this short. Admins should see this and this edit. As for the links on anything positive about these 'brain training' programs being removed by me is a lie. Multiple users removed positive links to the program because they were poorly or primarily sourced, including administrators. I only cared about reliably sourced material being left alone. I also have NO connection to Max Coltheart, Linda Siegel or Anne Castles. I NEVER created any of these articles. A user created an entry on Anne Castles, so I felt Max Colheart, who Castles is or was a students of, deserves an entry as well, but it was not me who created them, just suggested them. The accuser thinks that other users don't have the capability of checking an articles creation history. The accuser also has a habbit of claiming that anyone who is opposed to him or edit wars against him has a 'special connection' to the subject that they are editing (see the links I shared for details). That is my response.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The Linda Siegel article is an interesting case. It was originally created by the sock StarbucksLatte. It was an appalling coatrack which consisted solely of criticising her research on Arrowsmith School, referenced solely to material written by the head of the school and published solely on the school's website. So here we have an eminent academic whose 40 year research career on learning disability is presented on Wikipedia as consisting primarily of her criticism of this school. I and another editor were in the process of cleaning it up and turning it into a proper biography, when it was deleted as the creation of a blocked sock. The other editor who was cleaning it up quite rightly re-created it, and it is now a decent article about a notable academic. (Admins can view the original version of the article.)
I've now had a close look at Arrowsmith School and it is equally appalling from the opposite perspective. I'm going to leave some recommendations on the talk page later today. Taeyebaar, I strongly suggest you step back from editing that article. In my view your additions were not helpful to furthering a concise, balanced, and above all encyclopedic coverage of the subject. To Seanstephens and assorted socks, who I'm sure are reading this... Don't sock (in all its definitions, including "meat puppetry" via off-wiki canvassing). The reason it is so heavily sanctioned on Wikipedia (and the reason why I personally detest it) is that it destroys trust amongst editors and makes coherent, constructive dialogue impossible. To both Taeyebaar and the assorted socks, I strongly suggest you all avoid speculating about other editors' motives. It does nothing but muddy the waters and it rarely ends well for any of the parties. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I found a notice about this discussion by Seanstephens on my former talk page. He did an amazing job collecting evidence against rogue editor Taeyebaar. Well, not surprisingly, he got himself blamed for sock-puppetry and blocked. Taeyebaar is a skilled manipulator and he is clearly supported by many influential editors and admins. I seriously question WP CheckUser policy, to me it has clearly become a tool to silence opposition. I was under impression that the goal of this tool is to fight vandalism and it can ONLY be used when somebody suspected in vandalism, it clearly states that "It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." It is clearly not the case here. I personally can no longer edit WP thanks to misuse of CheckUser. My former WP account was declared as a sock-puppet of my business partner John. Ok, I can at least explain this by IP overlap when we both did editing in the office. Next, few people come to my defense and raised questions about dubious edits by Taeyebaar... within days their accounts were declared as sockpuppets of John (ironically, John doesn't even know who Taeyebaar is). There is absolutely no way that CheckTool could show any IP overlap for these accounts, so the results of CheckUser tool were clearly manipulated. To demonstrate this just consider that some "very trusted editor" based on "results" of CheckUser tool first declared Beardocratic as a "confirmed" sock of Mishash, now Beardocratic is declared as a "confirmed" sock of Seanstephens... People who care abuse of WP should (1) investigate this sockpuppetry farce and (2) take accusations of Seanstephens a bit more seriously. I don't know who pays Taeyebaar, but they clearly got their money worth. [My home and office IP addresses are blocked thanks to Taeyebaar, but I am visiting my son in Montreal, so I can write this post-mortem...] (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)block-evading sock (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would like to bring your attention to the actions of admin Guy. He just tried to hide this entire section of noticeboard. He was also the admin who edited all brain training articles back to Taeyebaar's biased version after all the opponents were blocked. Something fishy is going on here... (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) block-evading sock
The above IP has now been, of course, as pretty much anyone reading this thread knew it would be, blocked for block evasion. @Seanstephens: Every time you do this, you're making it less and less likely that anything is going to be done about your complaints. BMK (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You should really act upon the content of this thread rather than dismiss it based on presumed "sockpuppetry". Sockpuppetry or meetpuppetry become a convenient tool to eliminate opponents here, as you can see from my comments above, IP match doesn't even matter for CheckUser anymore, one user could be in the UK and another in Canada and they still be labeled as "sockpuppets" just because they oppose the same type of biased editing. As for blocking dynamic IPs, that's just plain stupid - to block me while I am in Montreal you'll need to block IP range of the entire downtown Montreal :). Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)
I thought you had been blocked as a sock? BMK (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, yet another block-evading sock of Seasnstephens. BMK (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion[edit]

As noted above by several of us, Taeyebaar's editing has been going against the WP:OWN and WP:NPOV standards, and several of us good-standing editors have already participated in a discussion attempting to get these standards enforced. Don't close the discussion just because it was started by a sockpuppet. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not, at least not always. His edits include balancing material. And I am not happy that this thread is started by a block-evading sock, who removed hatting, again evading the block. We should ignore this trolling per WP:RBI unless and until an independent and neutral request is brought. Meanwhile, the entire series of articles is a walled garden and needs ruthless pruning. Brain gym is bollocks, and most of the programmes sold by these firms are bollocks as well. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
So Taeybaar has finally made a comment here which is surprising since he has steadfastly refused to comment at the Arrowsmith talk page. I find it interesting that he ignores the discussion and instead tries to provide more evidence against the OP. The key takeaway I believe is this - ( where we see Taeybaar engaging in (and admitting to)sockpuppetry and engaging in the same behaviour that leds us here in the current instance. So if socks are fighting with socks do we have a drawer of socks? --Daffydavid (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hardblocking IPs[edit]

Zero0000 commonly hardblocks IP addresses with the rationale "Vandalism-only account". This includes (see log) disabling talk page access. However, the blocking policy says, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." When I asked Zero000 about this, he replied (diff), "The rules are unclear on this point, but the rationale is to allow for appeals and discussion of the block. If there is someone there who wants to change their ways and edit responsibly, it won't hurt them to wait a week first." I feel that the rules are quite clear on this point: talk page access shouldn't be disabled without abuse of that right after being blocked. An exception would be if it's a sockpuppet/spambot and there is no hope of a successful appeal, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Conifer (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As a general principle, I don't think talk page access or email access should be revoked unless they are abused. But I'm also not an admin dealing with difficult cases so I can't say that I'd also go by those principles when faced with disruptive editors. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at just a few random blocks and it seems that at least a few of them are the same person with a history of bigoted remarks, in those cases I think it makes sense. Are there any specific blocks you think were incorrect? Chillum 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Random, drive-by IP vandalism shouldn't normally disable talk page access, but also to consider that admins are often familiar with particular vandals, and in cases where a vandal can be identified by behavior rather than IP address, I can understand where an block of this type would be justified. No statements on the specific situation here, just in general it could happen that an admin doing this would be justified, in limited ways in doing this. We'd need a more complete picture than what is presented above to decide one way or the other if this specific situation is being handled correctly or not. --Jayron32 02:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no specific incident I'm concerned about, just wondering how best to interpret policy. Personally, I think that while it can be tiring to entertain unblock requests from malicious editors in such controversial areas, it's still better to give them a shot at appeal and revoke talk page access if they abuse it. Conifer (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine, but if the admin is correct that it's just the same trolling user IP-hopping, then the odds are the person has abused talkpage access, just on a different IP's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I take a no-tolerance approach to pure vandals, as per the policy "accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning". Of course one should only block an IP for a limited time (except open proxies). I don't lose any sleep if a pure vandal can't "appeal" until a short block expires. If there was a technical way to block an IP vandal indefinitely without inconveniencing a genuine editor using the same IP, I would do it. We have enough good editors without worrying too much about those whose only actions are to attack the project. In addition, it is not clear to me that an IP-talk-page counts as a "user talk page" for the purposes of the rules, since the IP doesn't belong to a particular user; I'd welcome other opinions on that. Zerotalk 14:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is called User talk:whatever IP it may be, and the box at the bottom of IP talk pages does say "This is the discussion page for an IP user".
WP:OWNTALK says "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users" (emphasis mine), which when combined with the first sentence of this quote pretty much suggests that yeah, IP talk pages count as user talk pages.
And there is "You will be notified when someone else edits your user talk page. Since 30 April 2013, registered users receive a notification through the new Wikipedia:Notifications system (see image right); unregistered users still receive notifications with the old-style Orange Bar." (emphasis mine), from WP:ORANGE. I otherwise mostly agree with you, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good points. Zerotalk 23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog repeatedly disregarding requests for explanations concerning an edit[edit]

This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page metastasizing into a pointless all-out brawl. Non admin closure. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Jytdog reverted a change that I made to a page and is refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for the reversion. Here is the policy from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS that he violated: "A disruptive editor is an editor who...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits..."

Specifically, s/he made the following change, which is the reversion of my change: [220]. The change I made was to remove a citation that did not support the sentence in the article that the citation purported to substantiate.

We started to discuss the disagreement here: [221]. After getting by some misunderstandings, he claimed that the following sentence in the cited web page was his basis for claiming that the citation substantiated the sentence in the article: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods." Please note that these sentences make no mention of any scientific consensus. Please also note that they do not pronounce that any such foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

When I requested his basis for believing that these sentences from the linked web page were somehow equivalent to the claim in the article, his response was as follows: "I hear you; that is your interpretation"--and then started engaging in a debate about the content of the page (in other words, he started arguing that certain genetically-modified foods were safe), which was not the purpose of the discussion. When I pressed him further (see my 05:36, 29 May 2015 post in the talk thread), his response was: "really, you are beating a dead horse here." When I again asked him to "...explain [his] analysis in more detail to justify [his] position that the citation should remain in the article," his response was: "And I don't agree...You cannot change things by pounding away on dead horses, ..." A further attempt at engaging in good faith resolution was met with: " are just shifting ground here. I suggest you drop the stick."

The above paragraph describes the essence of the interaction. We also discussed whether the cited page needs to directly state that consensus existed or whether the sentence could be synthesized from the citation at issue along with the other citations. (WP:RS/AC: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[A]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.") In addition, we also discussed the impact of two somewhat-related RfCs on the discussion and whether comments on that page were relevant even if they did not mention the citation at issue or how it substantiates the sentence in the article.

I think my question is legitimate and and that my request for the information is reasonable. I am not asking the administrators to intervene in the content dispute (over whether the citation should remain). I am only requesting that the administrators either compel Jytdog to provide a good-faith basis for his reversion of my change or to drop his opposition to my change. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Without judging this one way or the other, have you tried to raise these issues on the article talk page, and asked for other users to give their opinion using normal dispute resolution methods? Wikipedia has no deadline and there's no need to be right for the next week, if we can take a more reasoned approach and get it right forever, even if we're wrong for the next week, that's OK. My only recommendation, without getting too much into the details here, is to have patience, use dispute resolution, and have the long-view in mind. Letting the article be wrong for a short while, during which time discussion and exposition occurs that will allow it to be right, is MUCH preferrable to fighting over it, especially where fighting makes oneself look bad and vindictive, and thus ultimately prevents the right thing from happening in the end. Just a general thought. --Jayron32 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I linked (see above) to the talk thread that was designed to discuss the content dispute. All the other commenters in the thread favored my change (or a similar change) or were silent or unclear on the issue. I did not use the content dispute resolution methods because this specific violation pertains to user conduct and I am still hoping that we can resolve the content matter without mediation. I see no point in waiting any longer because he has made clear that he is not planning on responding any time soon. I think he is clearly stalling as an obfuscation tactic. He created an RfC that widens the discussion to all of the citations for that sentence in the article--all ten of them. The problem with that tactic is that many editors are endorsing the citations collectively because they agree with the sentence for political reasons. None of them are even mentioning the citation at issue--much less explaining why they think it supports the one citation I am questioning. Once Jytdog manages, through the RfC, to solicit enough of his political allies to endorse the overall claim (the sentence in the article that needs support), he is going to come back to the WHO thread and say "See! We have community consensus that the citations substantiate the claim!" (By the way, I am not here to promote any political agenda myself. I just want Wikipedia to be factual and not be hijacked to promote political agendas.) GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • ‘... to solicit enough of his political allies ...” ← hmmm, this turn of phrase is suggestive of the problem here not being bad faith on Jytdog's part, but on yours. Otherwise this would appear to be a common-or-garden content dispute. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I admit that was a poor choice of words. My point was that I think he was going to use the RfC, which was interpreted by editors as whether the statement in the article should remain, as a way of shutting down discussion over whether the WHO citation should remain.GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The RfC did seem to come about in order to stop a very fruitful discussion. With regard to Jytdog ignoring talk page comments, I found this to be the case as well, and it's very frustrating. Once Jytdog opened the sudden RfC, no further work was done in the thread GrayDuck began. In the thread, I had pointed out that 1/3 of the Controversy section was being used to promote the safety of GMO foods, as a rebuttal, rather than to discuss controversy. Jytdog responded by saying that the community had found no problems in some past RfC, insinuating "case closed". I asked for a link to this discussion, curious to see how editors would argue for such a profound misuse of a Controversy section. No response. I asked again at Sarah SV's talk page where he was engaging in a thread I had just opened. No response. When caught promoting POV or a downright untruth, he ignored me and within no time, this new RfC was opened, and silenced all of us. The RfC is another problem altogether, but I'll leave my comments at the behavioural issue for now. (Two cents: It would be neat if this thread is closed by an uninvolved admin - someone who does not work alongside Jytdog on articles.) petrarchan47คุ 10:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I see now that my attempt to address the POV was reverted an hour into the fresh RfC, with Jytdog's bogus reasoning in the edit summary: "revert WP:POINTy revision while RfC on this very section is ongoing". The RfC is about one statement which exists in the lede, and now (again) in the controversy section. I hadn't changed the sentence, nor the paragraph containing it, other than to move it out of the controversy and to its own section for neutrality purposes. Besides moving the claims of safety out of the controversy section, I added the percentage of Americans who favored labeling - which is what makes it controversial. Previously (and now, after the revert) there was no mention of why the labeling issue is controversial, only the FDA's reasoning for lack of GMO labeling is noted. I also updated the article with the fact that the USDA just announced they are creating a non-GMO label. That was reverted too.
There is a serious POV and ownership problem with regard to Jytdog. I know I'll get screamed at for this, but I would suggest a topic ban from all GMO related articles. petrarchan47คุ 11:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


I totally concur with the view of Jytdog refusing to provide explanations and, given the time, I would be very interested to research any potential reason why. GregKaye 11:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Genetically modified food controversies are ... controversial. We get new editors showing up all the time who very vehemently disagree with all kinds of things. And editors who have been here for a while who believe Monsanto is Satan and GMOs are his Evil Spawn. And of course, editors like Petrarchan who vilify me as something like Monsanto's Antichrist Here to Destroy Wikipedia From Within ( see this and this followed by this, and especially this).
  • GrayDuck is a new user and a WP:SPA on this issue (see here. ('they have been on WP 6 days. and they already mastered talk page quoting and citing WP:SYN and coming to ANI. fierce, fierce WP:ADVOCACY here on a content dispute.) We also have an IP in the discussion at the article, who is also a new user and a WP:SPA (see here.) There has been a PR campaign by anti-GMO activists attacking the reality that there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating GM food (see here and especially here and this which is scientific PR for this petition. So I am expecting lots of impassioned SPAs to be showing up. As well as my usual haters. I am sorry if this brings drama.
  • Probably the most enraging content in the articles is the statement that there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating currently marketed food from GM crops. That is what this is about. The WHO source has been in the article supporting that statement since since Dec 2012 and was among the sources when we had an RfC on the consensus statement back in August 2013 (here). Most of the enraged folks get so angry that they don't actually read what the content says - it doesn't say that "all theoretical food from GMOs is safe" (instead it mentions just "currently marketed" foods, each of which has been through the regulatory process); it doesn't say "absolutely safe" - it says safe relative to conventional food, which also has its risks. And its only about eating food; not about environmental issues or patent law or anything else.
  • Yes, the OP raised a question about the WHO source.
    • Like many new editors, GrayDuck first edited warred to try to get their way: here and here and here.
    • i opened a thread on talk here to try get them to start Talking
    • Grayduck finally started talking and opened with the canard (heh) that the statement is about all possible food and threw in some references to "propaganda"
    • I replied explaining the limited nature of the consensus statement and explained how the WHO source supports it.
    • the very next comment broadened the discussion to the statement generally and its sourcing, and it went on from there, as you can see if you review the thread.
    • in my view, it takes an RfC to modify the results of a previous RfC, especially on probably the most controversial statement in a controversial article. So I opened a new RfC on the consensus statement.
  • Grayduck became angry that the conversation is no longer about their issue. I explained to GrayDuck here and here and here, this happens in WP - you open a thread, and others take it somewhere else. There is WP:NODEADLINE here and we can turn back and address the specific source once the broader question is addressed.
  • This ANI thread has no basis in any violation of a behavioral policy or guideline. Please close it and trout GrayDuck. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment, I was quite prepared to let this incident report pass until I saw what I first regard to be the blatant departure from reality as presented above which, after taking a look at the thread concerned seriously makes me question the extent to which Jytdog is WP:HERE for the purpose to build an encyclopedia. I would advise any editor here to take a look at the content so as to develop their own views.
However Jytdog, I think, makes a fair point in to mention the apparently high level of wiki knowhow exhibited by GrayDuck considering this short history of user contributions.
Jytdog I was very concerned as I first got my head together around this as to: Why, how in the world does any Wikipedia editor have, "usual haters" and have approached you personally about this.
Please be aware that the issue raised here has nothing to do with the view that "there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating currently marketed food from GM crops" but whether or not the WHO citation supports this view.
Regarding the claimed "edit warring" the edits were:
  1. removal of WHO cite
  2. replacement of WHO cite with comment "Undid revision 664222171 by GrayDuck156 (talk) Restore unexplained removal of source"
  3. removal of WHO cite with comment "The citation does not support the claim. In fact, it contradicts it by saying that " is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.""
  4. replcement of WHO cite with comment "Undid revision 664340537 by GrayDuck156 (talk) please discuss on talk. please also read the actual content - it doesn't say "all GM food""
  5. removal of WHO cite with comment "Undid revision 664340715 by Jytdog (talk)"
  6. replacement of WHO cite by Greyduck with comment "First, Jytdog ignored my first sentence. Second, the sentence is of no value and is misleading unless "all GMO food" is assumed." (perhaps this was a fortuitous edit in error).
Discussion then began on the TP with Jytdog asking "please explain your objection to the WHO source per your deletions" which was still in the context that the edit summaries had already done this.
The "finally started talking" began with three paragraphs of text 16 minutes after being pinged but with the sentence "I certainly hope that Wikipedia does not change from being a neutral source of information to being a propaganda vehicle" (with emphasis added to WP buzzword).
"the very next comment" was added by Tsavage a different editor.
"Grayduck became angry". It is fair to say that s/he addressed matters in an unnecessarily personal way. However many editors, I think after reading the thread, might have got angry with your, as far as I can see, unsupported responses.
I sympatise with the concerns of Petrarchan47 regarding getting "screamed at for this" but, without better knowledge of Jytdog, cannot comment on whether the suggestion of "a topic ban from all GMO related articles" as being the most appropriate course of actions. I suspect that Jytdog may be best helped to think things through through the imposition of site ban of whatever length that editors that best know/understand him/her think would best fit. GregKaye 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We disagreed at the Bfpage matter where no one agreed with you. so you jumped on this ANI with a strong statement before reading the diffs, followed that to the article (where you have never edited) and wrote this ludicrous summary of the discussion there, then followed me to my talk page where you wrote this note, the spirit of which is kind of nice but which is... well i will not characterize it. And now came back here with yet more baloney. so i have another "fan". OK then. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We have been trying to call attention to this very serious problem for years.1 2 We have editors/admins who cover for this activity with clown-like distractions and by never, ever giving this a skeptical look. We have 300 scientists, researchers and doctors calling out Wikipedia's Genetically Engineered Food article specifically for its promotion of unsupported GM safety claims, and for misrepresenting science. This is the reality at Wikipedia. petrarchan47คุ 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hand wringing. After yet another attempt to vote your opposition off the island gives up the ghost... Since for years and years and years you've been trying to right great wrongs, failing, and complaining about it with nobody listening, is it possible that maybe this is a sign that you might benefit from a topic ban, rather than everyone that disagrees with you? Geogene (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not enough colours. Come back when you you have more colours. Also try different faces. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere, over the rainbow... Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you know any more about that policy than you do about WP:FRINGE. It's really not a good idea to go trolling on the admin boards after you've been sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Calling my edits "trolling" is uncivil. Please stop that.DrChrissy (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
By definition, calling a spade a spade cannot be uncivil. BMK (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

My IP stalker is back[edit]

  • Looks like they need the satisfaction of wasting everyone's time.
  • The IPv4 IP is Kaia Global Networks Ltd. again, this time Italian. Does anyone know if they're a proxy provider? Because it really seems like they might be. IPV6s ping back to nLayer Communications, so I'm guessing they're proxies as well. @Diannaa: to notify you of the latest annoyances. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I am still in Vancouver and won't have access to admin tools for another 10 hours or so. -- Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 14:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess someone just got their temporary block lifted.[edit]

BLOCKED: blocked for a month for disruptive editing by JzG. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 12:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this acceptable behaviour? Pinging User:Diannaa who asked to be let know if anything happened after. For reference. Mabalu (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked the IP. Please let us know if the person switches to a different IP, and we can do a range block again. The previous range was -- Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Caitlyn Jenner/Bruce Jenner snarl-up[edit]

I'm going to close this as the cute/paste move has been resolved. Hopefully the dispute wont end up back here, but if it happens, it can be in a new section on those separate issues. Monty845 17:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Can an admin please look at the manual, and therefore broken, move of Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner, reverse it, then do it properly? Or not the last part, if we're going to go for an argument about these things as usual. But certainly the first part. Thank you! Trey Maturin (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I've not informed anyone about this as the move was clearly made in good faith and the correction would be helping the people who made it - we don't need to terrify them or punish them or the like. IMHO. Trey Maturin (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've done the first part. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Bongwarrior (talk · contribs)! Trey Maturin (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. I've declined to move it to Caitlyn because I'm not sure how these transitions usually go down, and it would probably require a little discussion first (if not arguing). --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting block for persistent IP vandal[edit]


Actionable vandalism. Floquenbeam protected the page for a few days, and blocked the offending IPs. (non-admin closure) --Atsme📞📧 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editor has continued to vandalize Milwaukee Brewers after warnings to this IP and other mobile IPs used to vandalize the same article in the same manner. Please see the article's edit history. I requested semi-protection on the article yesterday, but no one has addressed it yet. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a few days, and blocked the most recent IP's (although that was probably an empty gesture). You might want to compare the edits in this diff: [222], it looks like the remaining changes are useful but you'll know better than I. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. [223] was a legitimate edit. The vandalism was all in reference to Arizona Diamondbacks player Paul Goldschmidt "owning" the team. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Review / mass rollback request[edit]

Please could someone with Rollback review recent edits by (~100 on 01/06). Most, if not all, appear to conflict with WP:SUBCAT. Thanks. (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) I am in the process of reverting their edits right now. I'll look to see if they have any constructive edits during this period, because I am doing a mass revert. Epic Genius (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC) is continuing to add inappropriate categories following mass revert and despite User talk: message. (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've left one final message; if it resumes before this is resolved, I'll block the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


I recently blocked Lauyulam (talk · contribs) for edit warring; I then removed talk page access for repeatedly removing the block template and for edit summaries like this. After their return they have just posted this on their talk page, which kind of speaks for itself. It's probably best if somebody uninvolved can review please. GiantSnowman 18:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI, our current guideline at WP:REMOVED does permit removal of the block notice itself, (this changes regularly each time a new RFC is held on it) its only declined unblock requests that are protected from removal during the duration of the block. Since the talk page revocation wasn't technically correct, maybe just give them a pass on the userbox. Monty845 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No matter what reason the editor has, that box and the bad edit summaries can not be okay. "Two wrongs does not make one right", and I dont see why we would allow this just because he could remove block notice. Also as User:GiantSnowman said, the talkpage access was also removed due to bad edit summaries. Qed237 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
True, two wrongs don't make a right; but where a situation has been escalated as a result of experienced editors misapplying policy, (even one we keep changing back and forth) I think we need to be careful to not compound the error and so should give the other party more slack then we might otherwise. It doesn't excuse the conduct, but if we hadn't edit warred the block notice back on, they wouldn't have said what they did in edit summaries, talk page access wouldn't have been revoked, and the userbox probably wouldn't have been added. Monty845 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't blocked for edit-warring the block notice, but for repeatedly inserting the Catalan names of Spanish footballers into their articles after warnings, etc., (and was reported for it here). Hope this clarifies. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Monty has a point: edit warring by several editors to restore the block notice further enflamed the situation. However, Lauyulam doesn't appear to hold collaborative editing in really high regard, so I'm not sure we need to pussyfoot around this too much. I've removed the obviously unacceptable notice, and left a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit-warring, in regard to the users trying to restore the block notice, was done in the best interests of the situation. However, Lauyulam returned the favor with vagrant slurs that were meant just to be rude. The mistake by others did not justify Lauyulam's actions, and that should be considered when settling this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) It looks like someone unblocked him/her (unless he was on a temporary block that simply expired), but at any rate, this is just uncalled-for. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it was a 48-hour block, now expired. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Monty845: @Floquenbeam: - while I personally didn't restore the block notice, I probably would have done had I been on-line at the time, as I was under the (incorrect) assumption that only expired block notices could be removed. Regardless, are you saying that that justifies their banner accusing me (and others) of being mentally ill? GiantSnowman 11:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, I assume this is some bizarre new way of saying "Thanks, Floq"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Yes, of course, thank you... :) GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it justifies it, or even excuses it. Only that we should consider it as a mitigating factor in deciding how to deal with the subsequent conduct. Clearly removing the banner was justified; normally something like that might justify a block, and what I'm saying is that in light of the history here, instead of a block now, we should wait to see if Lauyulam continues being disruptive before deciding. Monty845 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Shabazz[edit]

a garden-variety content dispute (and copyvio issues) which (as yet) does not need admin intervention (and we'd like to keep it that way). Closing this, discussion properly belongs on article talk pages --Jayron32 03:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

When Mike Shabazz disagrees with you there is absolutely no space between original research and copyright violation [224]. I am afraid to edit articles relating to Judaism because of Shabazz.Scientus (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Malik, not Mike. The last time he was complainrd of here, the complainant objected to his supposedly pro-Arab and Muslim views see here. Do you just want to chat or are you referring to some specific actionable incident? Paul B (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the diffs provided that justifies coming to ANI. Scientus is having a disagreement with Malik on a Talk page. From this, we are to assume that Malik has so intimidated Scientus that they are afraid to edit articles related to Judaism? @Scientus, have you even talked to Malik about your feelings before complaining about him here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe he is either pro-Arab or pro-Israel. I said Judaism because the issues are about the term "anti-Semitism" and the synonym "Judeophobia". Just got really angry when he threatened to block me from Wikipedia because copyvio after deleted my sourced data as OR. The only reason I paraphrased so closely was because of the repeated claims of OR, then when he assumed an edit was a revert (and then reverting it as a minor edit) when it wasn't he didn't respond to my comment mentioning this problem. I feel bullied by an admin. On substance: using "antisemitism" to introduce Pinsker views is an insult to his aversion to that term, and a US report used "anti-Semitism", not "antisemitism" and it should be sourced as such. The former is English, and the latter is German, even if the latter has entered the English language, and I don't really care but we should respect the sources. I imagine "antisemitism" is partially an attempt to avoid the gramattical problems with the term, which have been discussed ad infinum, and even has its own page at the ADL and denial that Arabs are Semites.Scientus (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He's right about what law applies, and just because someone labels your edit OR doesn't give you the right to infringe to "fix" it. Some of this, btw, seems like a lot of nit-picking, i.e., anti-semitism vs. antisemitism. Finally, "insulting" a source by using a term they don't like is not something that is at all relevant to Wikipedia content.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Scientus appears to have a hearing problem. She/he cannot accept the fact that antisemitism, a word that only means "Jew-hatred", has nothing to do with Semites. This is a content dispute that started about a week ago when Scientus proposed to move Islam and antisemitism, and then Scientus spread the dispute to Antisemitism. I believe Scientus has engaged in original research and copyright violation in pursuit of her/his obsession.

I apologize for my hasty response to an edit by Scientus that claimed to revert my removal of COPYVIO material. I should have looked more closely before I used rollback and threatened to block Scientus if she/he reinserted the COPYVIO material.

I believe the appropriate place to discuss this matter is Talk:Antisemitism, not a noticeboard. I look forward to discussing the matter with Scientus there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The creation of the neologism "antisemitism" in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr was intended to give a modern neo-scientific gloss to an age-old hatred. Marr had no intention of including other Semitic peoples in the scope of the word, which meant then, and means today, bias and prejudice against and hatred for Jews, and Jews alone. BMK (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Dennis Hastert[edit]

Some admin eyes (or any experienced neutral editor) would be appreciated on Dennis Hastert with regard to undue weight in the lead. The man's life is not just the recent scandal. Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:Dennis_Hastert#Indictment_in_lead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC) legal threat[edit]

IP blocked for legal threats, article amended whilst further investigation takes place. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

I was just trying to report the same incident. Thanks for posting it Non-dropframe. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite simple, if you promote lies, people have the right to challenge them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also quite simple, if you want to pursue legal proceedings, you don't get to edit Wikipedia. -- GB fan 22:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For reference, see also: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP appears to be the same user has been making similar edits going back to 2013. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Can we also check whether there are in fact any WP:BLP concerns on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Everything appears to be well sourced, although the length of the section about Loughton "sacking" his constituent does seem a bit excessive for a minor incident and could be severely trimmed. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I've been doing a WP:DOLT review. The material in question was all properly cited, and reasonable reflected the source material, and I think the article is BLP compliant, though it may give too much ink to the whole affair, per WP:WEIGHT. A full third of the article is devoted to it, and nothing really came of it. Monty845 23:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, this is a bit weird. The 12:08 edit to the article by this IP today was a BLP violation - it accused Loughton of saying something offensive about another person without any source (I've revision deleted it). All the edits this evening, though, have been removing material that may be seen to be negative to the subject. How very strange. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Right. After looking at the IPs edits to another editor's talkpage, I do see what the issue is now. I'm going to take a look at the Loughton article and I'm pretty sure quite a chunk may need to be excised. I won't go into more details but any admin who looks at the deleted talkpage edits will see what I mean. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that large chunks of the material should likely be removed, given what ultimately came from it. Some mention is probably still appropriate given the degree of coverage; but even then, we can probably greatly minimize the material to which the IP objects. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've killed the whole section for the time being on the basis of WP:DONOHARM. I agree there may be a way of restoring a summary of the issue without the contentious material, but it's late here so I'll have to look at that tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mikesmithonepercenter and 2015 Waco shootout[edit]

Mikesmithonepercenter Please take a look at the article and take appropriate action. Editor keeps reinserting POV and talk in article with little to no referencing. Viewpoint considerably fringe. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pure soapboxing, as seen from his edit request to Talk:Anonymous (group). Here's the url for his vimeo rant. User is here merely to push his fringe position using Wikipedia as a host. User is at final warning now; I see no reason for additional extensions of patience. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Now editing after final warning. Reported at AIV; btw, there's a bit of a backlog at AIV. BusterD (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Just reverted again. Please block. John from Idegon (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Floquenbeam got it. BusterD (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Blocked until he starts talking to people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-opened as it appears the blocked editor is now socking on Hard block please? John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Blocked the IP; will consider semi-protection if they show up again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


User indeffed by Floquenbeam. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

This user has repeatedly performed edits to the Disney XD (Australia) article (namely the section which relates to the channels programming) which are deemed inappropriate and counterproductive. Conversations have been started on both the user's talkpage and on the article's talk page and despite it being made clear to this user by myself as well as other users, he/she continues to replace reliable and appropriate information and structure with his/her own. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Only edits to a talk page or user talk page I could find is his recent deletion of a year's worth of messages, without reply. More than enough warnings; blocked until he begins interacting with people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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


This started with an edit I made to Scotiabank,

I removed an image of Scotiabank Place that was in the article as I felt it wasn't relevant to the article anymore because the bank itself no longer sponsors the arena and the other two images were of branch locations themselves.

User undid the edit and put in the summary "just because you love euge & nhl hockey, doesn't mean the corruption RE: cdn tire/scotia/canada banks should be ignored" which I still have no idea what he means.

I then tried once again to delete the image and was greeted with another summary of "unexplained removal. likely conflict of interest (NHL hockey fan interested in protecting scotia/cdn tire's corruption to prolong league's duration".

The user doesn't appear to be active on his talk page and his talk page just is other incidents of him getting into edit wars or issues with comments made in summaries. They did not respond to any of the users/notices posted.

His user talk page is at This is the only link I can provide as he doesn't have an actual user page created.

--WestJet (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the next step you might take is to go to Talk:Scotiabank to begin a discussion with other editors who watch this article. It would help to see if your edits had support from other editors. Liz Read! Talk! 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Excess protection[edit]

I am unable to leave a message on User talk:JzG because the page is protected. When trying to leave a message, I was directed instead to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page but that page is also (semi)protected.

Please sort it out. (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection of the RFPP is only likely to happen for a short time, this one will be expiring in about 1h 30 minutes. If you can't wait that long you'll have to ask somewhere else. Here is probably a good as place as any. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
While we are reluctant to to semi-protect admin user-talk pages, that one was clearly necessary. Likewise, the protection at RFPP is very necessary. How about you just reply here with your message, and if its constructive, someone will copy it over to JzG's talk page. Monty845 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)