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)
  • (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)

History of the WWE - Long-running edit war[edit]

  • User:RealDealBillMcNeal and User:Rebelrick123 have been engaged in an on-and-off edit war on this article since February. The general gist of it seems to centre around the names of the "eras" involved. The first revert in this long-running sequence came on the 6th of February, where RealDealBillMcNeal (henceforth referred to as RDBMN) reverted a bunch of edits from Rebelrick123 (henceforth referred to as R123) with the edit summary of "Removing waffle." This edit war lasted another two days before the page was fully protected for a week. Since this rime, R123 has been blocked thrice for edit warring and personal attacks, whilst RDBMN has been blocked twice for exactly this kind of behaviour (both times ending up with their talk page access revoked). It's hard to say who is "right" in terms of the content war; both editors have had people intervening on their behalf as more than just reverting to the status quo (the latter is all I've done), and I've seen sources support both sides of the story. But it's not just the edit warring which has been problematic, it's been the language and attitudes used by both editors - be it in edit summaries, talk page threads, or user talk page posts:
  • I think there's little question that RDBMN's attitude has been worse, but then again, the vast majority of R123's edits were done with either no edit summary at all, or were just "undid revision X by editor Y", which is no more helpful. It's also worth noting that, since February, R123 has barely touched any article that is not the History of the WWE article; and most of those, if not all of them, were to related articles (ie articles on wrestlers). RDBMN also has a history of being incredibly combative on other articles; four previous blocks for 3RR violations are a pretty good sign of that.
  • Just a further note to say that R123 has reverted twice more since the start of this ANI thread, and probably should face an immediate block on that basis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions[edit]

  • I think we have to look at a few potential solutions to this problem. Short-term blocks don't work, and that's been proven. It's also been proven that neither editor is going to stop and discuss at this point. I can think of three solutions:
  1. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely topic banned from editing the History of the WWE article, due to the long-term edit war.
  2. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, under the standard terms of an IBAN.
  3. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, for persistent battleground conduct, including long-term edit-warring and severe incivility.
  • I would support all three of these solutions in equal amounts, and personally think that option 2 should be enforced if option 1 is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely support #1 – an article ban seems like it's definitely necessary in this case. No opinion (yet) on #2 and #3... --IJBall (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Imagine banning somebody from editing a page for trying to stop continuously disruptive editing that has marred this article for a long long time. Great patter. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You've edit warred so heavily on it that you've been blocked twice for your actions on the article, and both times your behaviour was so out of line that you found your talk page access getting revoked. Neither of you is any better than the other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #1 and #2 (in the hope that we won't need #3). Neither party has clean hands in this dispute. Miniapolis 22:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #1 and #2(uninvolved non admin) The behaviour of both surely warrants the actions. AlbinoFerret 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #3 I have only had the honour of interacting with RealDealBillMcNeal and the behaviour extends beyond the article being discussed here, one I've never edited. The trash-talk was unacceptable. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground is not particularly enjoyable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #1 and #2 as option 1, but would not oppose #3 if the consensus became the two should be indef'd. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #1. The two editors have only banged heads in the context of this article, so if they stay away from it it should make #2 moot. #3 is overkill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The reasoning behind #3; this is far from the first article that RDBMN has been problematic at, or their first edit-warring block; they have four priors, as well as a long history of extremely uncollaborative behaviour, and R123 is, at this point, essentially an SPA. Perhaps it could be argued to be overkill for R123, but RDBMN's history more than deserves such a sanction IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RealDealBillMcNeal being topic banned from editing the History of the WWE for a time period such as a year. Rebelrick123 should be kept under surveillance. GregKaye 04:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: how can you support a topic ban for one party and not the other? Both have been equally as bad as the other, regardless of who is "right" content-wise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bumping this to ensure it's not archived without action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all three. The first is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be written out, but it's better to make formal. The second is also pretty obvious, as it will prevent potential revenge wikis talking from either side. As for the third, well, it's pretty heavy, but this is out the first time RDBM has shown himself to be a guy who tried to bully his way around. He needs to take a hike and not let the door hit him on the way out. R123 I'm less concerned needs a full ban, but as both sides display equally atrocious behavior here, they should get the same result. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 and 2 but only after some instances I think that option 2 should be used first, if they see that they have been given enough leash, and start making trouble again Then option 1 would apply, I would reccomend that we use option 3 only if they start using socks or meatpuppets or preforming ban evasion. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 1, 1&2 or 3 Oppose 2 on its own. If we enact an IBAN then the first of these two to post edits and post in talk page discussions owns the page. I think a long term 1 should be enacted at first. 2 should be used if this spills over to other pages, 3 should be used if 2 is broken. SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kheider Adding stuff to WP:Notability (astronomical objects) to point to at AfD[edit]

Kheider has been attempting to go against consensus in AfDs for minor astronomical object articles. After several AfDs failed to go his way, he made these changes to WP:Notability (astronomical objects) So that he could point to them at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald in this edit here, less than 30 minutes after adding the 'support' to the notability guideline. There is no consensus on the talk page and little discussion.

Kheider also has been attempting to characterize Boleyn's attempts to cleanup the articles that failed notability as "genocide" at multiple AfDs: 1 2 3

Edit(Added this numbered list for clarity and organization: 18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)) In summary, these are the policies that have been alleged that Kheider violated:

  1. by me: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as Gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits."
  2. by me: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"
  3. by Boleyn(evidence included below): Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others'_comments "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."
(end list and edit ― Padenton|   18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────At 20:45, 17 May 2015 Padenton reverted all 9 of my good faith edits to NASTRO and then called my edits disgusting and assumed bad faith on the NASTRO talk page. Then at 23:53, 17 May 2015 Padenton posted on my talk page accusing me of edit warring. I then explained my edits on the NASTRO talk page at 00:25, 18 May 2015. Then at 00:39, 18 May 2015 Padenton further harassed me by posting this unnecessary (assuming bad faith) ANI complaint. On the NASTRO talk page, Padenton replied back suggesting that the Astro wikiproject is not a proper place to discuss Astro guidelines even though NASTRO itself suggests taking such discussions to the project page. None of my edits to NASTRO were done in bad faith and the ongoing harassment and character assassinations by Padenton need to stop as he has failed to demonstrate how any of my NASTRO edits resulted in a change of outcome for any AfD. Boleyn, was aware by May 6th that "I am working on NASTRO as we speak". -- Kheider (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also Notifying users who have been involved in the deletion discussions: Praemonitus, David Eppstein, Boleyn Padenton|   00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you like forumshopping. Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Changes_without_consensus. I would say you are the one out of line that can not support reverting my edits. -- Kheider (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the 29 April 2015 version of NASTRO, it says to "redirect" asteroid stubs, not delete them. If you were paying much attention you would also note that I am not supporting many asteroids in the AfDs. But I do have a right to express opinions and hope that users do not to throw out the baby with the bath water just because an article was created by a bot. -- Kheider (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"it says to "redirect" asteroid stubs, not delete them." Show me a single one that has been deleted in violation of that. "But I do have a right to express opinion" You do. What you don't have the right to do is unilaterally change a notability guideline to support your opinion. ― Padenton|   00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"Wow, you like forumshopping." Feel free to read WP:FORUMSHOP. If bringing the incident to WP:ANI was forumshopping, this noticeboard wouldn't exist. ― Padenton|   01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any heartburn with those edits to WP:NASTRO by Kheider. Those just appear to be adding clarification and refinement. Lower numbered asteroids generally have more sources available, and so they are worth checking more closely. I've also had to ask the poster to limit the number of AfDs so we have a chance to investigate properly, and he was kind enough to do so. Praemonitus (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree with Praemonitus. I don't see Kheider's edits as drastically changing the guideline; rather, I see them as editing the guideline to reflect the current practice of not unilaterally redirecting the low-numbered asteroids. However, the diffs provided comparing Boleyn's actions to genocide are unacceptable, however, and were I uninvolved I would have already issued a strong warning for such behavior. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur. It has been the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and simply clarifies the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Kheider is clearly very emotionally involved in this. My main concerns have been about him rewriting my AfD nominations (changing 'delete or redirect', which was my nomination, to just 'redirect', although he stopped when I warned him, I could easily have not noticed these changes being made. Although Kheider stopped, he didn't seem to acknowledge he had done anything wrong. There have also been a range of bad faith comments aimed at me by Kheider in the discussions which I have tried to just ignore and leave the discussions to be about the notability of the page in question. The comments about my actions being 'genocide' shows that Kheider has lost perspective on this (to say the least!). However, his opinions on the notability of the pages are of course very welcome. Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page User_talk:Boleyn#A_barnstar_for_you.21_5, " I re-wrote 2 of your AfDs because you were asking for numbered asteroid deletions when NASTRO makes it clear you should be asking for a re-directs when dealing with asteroids." The problem was quickly solved and I have noticed you have changed your wording since then. Thank you. For the record, I was comparing the act of re-directing 15,000+ bot created asteroid articles to genocide which may be not the best comparison, but 15,000 is a large number. I am disgusted with Padenton attacking me at NASTRO, my talk page, and here without actually having a conversation about the content of NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If an editor changes a policy, to support their argument in other pages citing that policy, it is very bad practice. Policies must be about «What is best for Wikipedia», not «How can I win my argument?» Spumuq (talq) 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how any of my edits to WP:NASTRO favored my argument for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald as claimed by Padenton. This has simply become character assassination by Padenton since he is a deletionist and took a strong dislike to the use of the word genocide. Padenton should NOT have reverted my edits at NASTRO and he is the one harming Wikipedia. Do we need to revert every edit to NASTRO since it was accepted in 2012? I know other people made minor edits to it without approval of a committee. -- Kheider (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The big difference between most of those edits is that they weren't being made by someone taking a position at AfD that is generally against consensus. When you are debating a series of articles in an AfD debate, you should not be making any changes to the relevant notability guideline, unless you're fixing spelling errors/typos. It is also COMPLETELY inappropriate for you to be editing any AfD proposal in the way you did. And, to compound matters, you're trying to blunt-force in your own views as being Wikipedia guidelines, and edit warring in the process. If you keep this up, regardless of any "good" previous history in this area, you will have to be topic banned. Claims that you haven't drastically changed the guideline (by you or by others) are clearly wrong, when the passage of text Asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing as they are generally larger and have been known longer. Editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. was not previously in there in any form, and is obviously bullshit in part (you have no right to place arbitrary restrictions on how many things editors can nominate at AfD whatsoever). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact they are being discussed now does not change the fact that you tried to force your change in TWICE after being reverted. Also noteworthy is the fact that both editors who have cast a !vote have opposed your changes. Wake up and smell the coffee - your viewpoint isn't the same as the majority of other editor's, and you need to recognize that ASAP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As being discussed below, do not confuse my 50km asteroid proposal that is being opposed with my clean-up of NASTRO that has received support from Praemonitus, StringTheory11, JorisvS, and has been general consensus for quite some time. If anything is new, it would be the 10 AfDs a day rule, which Boleyn found reasonable when Praemonitus made the request. -- Kheider (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

  1. Kheider should probably be topic-banned from this area for a month or so until he calms down
  2. WP:NOTABILITY and its subpages aren't gold-locked WHY exactly? There's no need for anybody but sysops to edit them, particularly when editing them causes problems like these.

pbp 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Even the editors against me say my edits to NASTRO were good. -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Some editors say that. I don't say that, nor do several other editors - your claim above is a barefaced lie (as can be seen from Padenton's comments on the NASTRO discussion which are staunchly in opposition to your actions, whilst David Eppstein has directly rejected your numbers-based change). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that they (including David Eppstein) are opposing my 50km asteroid rule, not the changes I made to clean-up NASTRO? -- Kheider (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that is not an entirely accurate analysis of their position? "A number is not a source and does not convey notability." rejects your attempts at arbitrarily defining notability for multiple sections with numbers you came up with yourself, not just the "50km asteroid rule". Padenton was also opposing your ownership of the guideline and associated articles - and it is pretty hard to come to any other conclusion. You are way too personally involved in this, you need to back right off and let other editors have their say. Just because you created something does not mean you can rule it with an iron fist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you name a change that I made to the actual NASTRO guide that I do not have any consensus for? I never inserted my 50km proposal. There is a basically accepted consensus on the Astro project for treating numbered asteroids below 2000 differently. I am not aware if anyone is even against even that change. -- Kheider (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I just pointed to a comment that is rejecting your arbitrary numbers, which, yes, includes that "numbered asteroids below 2000" thing. And besides, you're talking about a discussion for automatic redirecting, not one where asteroids below a completely arbitrary number are automatically assumed to be notable. Chalk and cheese. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Where did I write all numbered asteroid below 2000 are notable? The general consensus for years has been to discuss the ones below 2000. -- Kheider (talk)
I misread who made the post on the discussion thread with the laundry list of arbitrary numbers, so I apologize for that. However, the whole point of an AfD debate is to have a discussion - so there's nothing wrong with nominating it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That's right, there's nothing wrong with that. Kheider's version says that below 2000 that's exactly what should happen, on an individual basis. Above 2000 has already been discussed and decided that, if they meet certain criteria, they can be redirected without further discussion. Of course, if someone would like a discussion, that can still happen. --JorisvS (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest archiving this thread as it is out scope of this board. Anybody can edit any page in Wikipedia including any guideline. There is nothing here that requires administrator attention. Ruslik_Zero 21:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: The allegations made against Kheider in this ANI are (Redacted) (See top instead, list has been moved to initial statement)
Evidence for all these is in the arguments and links above. I could be wrong, I am not an admin, but I believe these are certainly within the scope of WP:ANI. If not, by all means show me where it should go and I will happily apologize and take it to the rightful location. ― Padenton|   03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
ANI is only for reporting specific incidents that require immediate administrator attention. General dispute resolution is outside the scope of this board. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Sorry, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE seems to say that the place would still be here unless I'm misreading it: "If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." This is an issue about user conduct in this disagreement, and as much as a few editors may have chosen to respond to only say "I liked/didn't like kheider's changes" that isn't what this ANI was brought up for. Rather it was brought up for the allegations I made above. ― Padenton|   13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to be done here. If it draws some attention to Boleyn's mindless attempts to redirect some asteroid articles instead of consolidating the information in those articles into comprehensive list articles and a rational organizing scheme, all the better.--Milowenthasspoken 04:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
AfD is the place for that claim. However, I am still unsure how stubs with less information than JPL's completely free database with less organization would be more helpful in constructing the comprehensive list articles you want. ― Padenton|   05:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
AfD is not for cleanup, however. There are lots of better free websites than Wikipedia, but none nearly as comprehensive nor as able to be continually improved. Thus the 10 minutes I just spent on 504 Cora will better serve humankind than mass AfDs which are effectively deleting content.--Milowenthasspoken 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"AfD is not for cleanup" refers to WP:CLEANUP, not articles where the issue is the subject's notability, as you were told in AfD. See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cleaning up articles of questionable notability by deleting them or changing them to redirects is exactly what AfD is for. ― Padenton|   14:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No one is debating that the information contained in these stubs could not be retained in list articles, yet it is being effectively deleted by stupid AfD drone behavior. The slavish devotion to whether a subject has a "page" vs. whether that content is available on Wikipedia in a digestable way to benefit our readers is ridiculous. It may well be that a ton of stubs is not the best way to display information. E.g., having stubs on every member of AKB48 is not a good way to present information. All I am demanding is that editors improve this encyclopedia if they wish to edit it.--Milowenthasspoken 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The presence of indiscriminate information on minor planets of no significance whatsoever in separate articles doesn't improve this encyclopedia. It improves this encyclopedia to follow consensus, and that consensus is that most of these articles shouldn't exist. There is absolutely nothing lost here, this is complaining about nothing. Feel free to expand the list articles with the various numbers, all of which can be seen from the history of any of the articles (all of which were redirected, I haven't seen a single one deleted), or you can just use the JPL database (which is where all the information was scraped from in the first place). ― Padenton|   14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I demand that Boleyn rewrite List of minor planets: 1001–2000, etc. to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not Boleyn's slave.--Milowenthasspoken 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If you are the one who wants to see the information, it is on you to make the table; you get to demand nothing. Boleyn is simply following the notability guideline WP:NASTRO, which was approved by community consensus. If you want to see a change, perhaps you could actually go to the appropriate forum (the talk page) and propose such a change, to see if it gets support, instead of here and on AfDs. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wrroooonng. I am not making any tables, you are not making me a slave. I am demanding that Boleyn make these changes and expect them to be followed. If not, I will demand that an asteroid collide with Earth. At some point an admin will close these thread and my demands will certainly be fulfilled.--Milowenthasspoken 18:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Milowent interaction ban[edit]

I hate to propose sanctions against somebody who is clearly usually a productive member of the community, but I must here. Milowent seems to have taken it upon themselves to oppose every recent AfD started by Boleyn (see contribs here; search for AfD nominations). That alone would constitute some wikihounding and is subpar behavior, and then I saw Milowent's comment in this thread that was obviously a personal attack on Boleyn here, referring to himself as a slave to Boleyn and "demand"ing that Boleyn be "deleted" from Wikipedia in the most condescending way possible. I thought it was an isolated incident, but then noticed that Milowent has been plastering the same comment on multiple AfDs regarding asteroids, see [5], [6], and [7]. When queried by me here and MrX at one of the AfDs, Milowent's responses were not encouraging, saying that his "demand" is rational [8], and that he, again, was not going to be a "slave", and that he wishes an asteroid would collide with Earth to stop the nominations [9]. It is clear at this point that Milowent cannot constructively interact with Boleyn, and I propose a one-way interaction ban preventing Milowent from interacting with Boleyn. (I also recommend that no further action be taken against Kheider for the time being). StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral: struck support, Milowent has acknowledged (but not apologized over) the personal attacks and incivility. A point that needs to be mentioned: Using WP:EFD for incivility, then bringing up the excuse of humor, is a very poor excuse to use WP:EFD. Esquivalience t 00:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This behaviour is upsetting me. I started AfDs as per general consensus, to solve a notability issue several years old - and the majority of those I have nominated have not been kept, but redirected. Nevertheless, I've felt hounded and intimidated by people opposing them being discussed, including around 30 notifications from Milowent of comments which have all been personal attacks, including 22 in one go. I'm fine with someone disagreeing with me, but we can't have this sort of behaviour. Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as accused. More to come later, on the night shift at the moment. Suffice it to say, I've had my say and only commented in a few of Boleyn's mass of nominations. I have no intention of going further with my efforts to draw editor attention to my concerns, if that was not sufficient.--Milowenthasspoken 10:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Additional comments from the accused: Oh lord people. I must disclose an important fact. Despite my frequent claims of omnipotence, I do not have the power to make an asteroid collide with Earth to influence AfD outcomes I do not like. I commented in about 10-15(?) of maybe 200 asteroid AfDs started by Boleyn (far from "every recent afd") in the past month. My initial comments about it being a misuse of AfD to do this (no AfD references the others, cut and paste nominations, no real evidence of WP:BEFORE occuring) went unheard, as they are trying to use AfD to develop policy, which really never works like this. WP:EFD (nominating editors for deletion you are frustrated with) is a joke as old as wikipedia. One really shouldn't propose interaction bans and blocks the first time you have a complaint about another editor, without even talking to them. I am the most reasonable person in the world. I didn't ask that Boleyn be banned from making AfD nominations for asteroids for a month (though it would be a good idea if they voluntarily let the prior AfDs run and then propose some consensus rules, but they completely ignored my suggestions). What am I primarily taking my time to do? I spent time timing improving 1700 Zvezdara, currently at AfD, to show it may indeed be notable, instead of being subject to a cut-and-paste nomination. I also improved 504 Cora, which isn't at AfD, but on a hitlist Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO, and which appeared notable to me. Boleyn, as with my perfectly friendly comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uthai Thani F.C., I simply ask you to consider if you are going about this the right way, and when you get negative reactions that is not a terrible thing, it is something to consider.--Milowenthasspoken 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Boleyn, this whole Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia is one of Wikipedia greatest problems and one of the reasons people leave Wikipedia never to return. This is also why I had asked to spare borderline asteroid candidates so there would be wiggle room for some growth, thus still giving the inclusionists something to expand. Newbies simply will not know how to undo a re-direct to a list page. Hell, after editing Wikipedia since 2006, I have not run around memorizing every policy, guide, or essay that can be thrown in someone's face by the Wiki-police. I only got involved in the NASTRO guide because I thought it was important and to combat extremists such as Chrisrus. Personally, I hate working on policies and making rules, but I also know very few have my knowledge or willingness (foolishness?) to work on NASTRO. After reading all of this crap, do you really think anyone else from the Astro project page will want to step-up and put serious effort into NASTRO any time soon with the risk of some wiki-cop coming around and attacking them? -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, Esquivalience, and Boleyn. No objection to no further sanctions on Kheider provided he agrees in the future to:
  1. Allow the discussion of his changes to policy/guidelines at the proper venue (which is the talk page of said policy, not a wikiproject talk page)
  2. Be up front about edits he makes to policies/guidelines by alerting discussions he is involved in that are affected by those changes
  3. Cease personal attacks against other users, including but not limited to:
    • Comparing actions fully justified by policy to genocide
    • Characterizing the edits of other editors as gang rape
  4. Refrain from editing the discussion comments of others, especially when he disagrees with them.
I really fail to see how any of these are 'obscure policies' being thrown at Kheider by the 'wiki-police'. It's simple common decency, honesty, and integrity. But apparently fair, reasoned discussion is a little too bureaucratic for "one of the creators of WP:NASTRO" as he introduced himself in some of the AfDs. ― Padenton|   16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
"Common decency" is not how I would describe your bad faith assumptions, calling my edits to NASTRO disgusting, posting edit war comments to my page "before having a real discussion at NASTRO", and then taking me to ANI so you could have your way with me. -- Kheider (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not a bad faith assumption to bring this issue to WP:ANI, the proper venue for it, when you allege Boleyn has committed Genocide, allege I gangraped you by starting this ANI, and edit Boleyn's AfD nomination to change its meaning. "so you could have your way with me" Seriously? Right after your 2 day block ended for comparing my actions to gangrape? You talk about scaring newbies away from Wikipedia. Are you sure you're not more of a problem than I am? You changed WP:NASTRO by "adding clarifications" that would support your argument in an AfD and then pointed to the new text as you had modified it to support your claims in an AfD. You still don't seem to realize how dishonest that is and how dangerous that is for consensus in Wikipedia. ― Padenton|   17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
You assumed my edits to NASTRO where in bad faith and still may think that for all I know. Not one of my changes to NASTRO caused a change of outcome at an AfD and am not sure how any of those common sense changes to NASTRO would. -- Kheider (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I grow tired of repeating myself. Your edits to WP:NASTRO here again implied a size cutoff for notability, in support of your previous arguments in the AfDs. They also implied that any number of light curve studies or occultation studies would support notability. You also imposed your own personal opinion of how many nominations should be made a day. All of these were in support of arguments you have been making in numerous AfDs for the past couple weeks. ― Padenton|   18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
See if you ask a question instead of attacking me, I can better explain. The main-belt asteroid 1999 XF255 is 5km in diameter and that is mostly why it is NOT notable in anyway shape or form. In no way was I suggesting asteroids larger than 5km are notable be default. When doing a search for asteroid info you will normally come across light curve studies or occultation studies, again that is does not automatically grant notability, but should be considered. You obviously know that the text can be edited vs completely reverting everything a single editor has added?-- Kheider (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is this is a guideline. Editors unfamiliar with the topic go there for guidance in their actions. By saying "it's not notable because it is less than 5km in diameter" doesn't clarify it, it makes it more vague. Just as saying "before nominating, check for light curve studies and occultation studies" (neither quote is verbatim) is implying that they are notable when you don't clarify that by saying it alone is not enough to justify notability. People are already checking for light curve studies and occultation studies, because they come up in searches for sources. I have yet to see a minor planet AfD where participants did not check google scholar and discuss that specific minor planet. ― Padenton|   21:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per OP - and as per some of Milowent's totally ridiculous comments in the thread above (ie the sarcastic demands and such tripe). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as completely uninvolved, unlike many participants in this discussion. These are all good contributors and this is a content dispute, acted out over inclusion of semi-minor astronomical objects. For the record, I've never been accused of being a friend to User:Milowent. It would fair to say that usually that editor and I have disagreed, sometimes bitterly, about AfD procedures. However, IMHO, there's some hyperbole being tossed around here on both sides (heck, even on the part of the IBAN/TBAN proposer), and I don't think an interaction ban is the way to go, and I certainly don't agree with a topic ban. Milowent is an editor I consider a strong inclusionist and perhaps an eventualist (in this case I mean that as a compliment). That editor has in the past worked doggedly to improve and keep articles at AFD as opposed to delete them, in virtually every sort of content area. The editor's passion is and has always been very strong, and I'll agree the comments made relating to slavery and user deletion were over the top. The diffs provided above, however, don't meet my standard for personal attack (personal yes, hyperbole yes, sarcastic yes, attack not so much). On the other hand, User:Boleyn has been a busy beaver, putting several hundred astronomical pages up for AFD in the last month or two, and other editors have asked Boleyn to slow down. We've got no deadline after all. Milowent has only commented at 25-30 processes (hardly "every one" as proposer asserts). Saying you want to delete users is an ancient inclusionist/ARS joke which doesn't play well anymore. As far as I can see, most of the conflict could have been avoided if (after seeing the way the wind was blowing) Boleyn had simply chosen to redirect the articles, which is how almost all of these AFDs have concluded. If Boleyn had not been so dedicated to putting these up for deletion in such a hurry, perhaps a better decision could have been made, given feedback at these many AFDs that these mostly deserved redirect, page histories being kept intact for later expansion (which is why I suspect Milowent opposed deletion so vigorously). IMHO, this whole affair would be better served at DR, not to this board. For now, Boleyn should stop putting more of these articles up for deletion until the issue is resolved. For now, Milowent should admit their use of language was unnecessarily strong, and promise not to repeat the behavior. For the rest, this deserves dispute resolution. I see insufficient diffs of wrongdoing to find anything actionable against any user in this dispute. BusterD (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • BusterD's comment has made me feel all warm and fuzzy. I agree that my language against Boleyn was unnecessarily strong despite the silliness of it, and promise not to repeat that behavior. I also promise to call off all notable and non-notable asteroids I previously had summoned towards Earth at high velocity.--Milowenthasspoken 02:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Milowent. With the promise not to repeat the behavior, I withdraw the proposal; I take Milowent's word for what it is, and no longer believe an interaction ban is necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Together we can take things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1656 Suomi and improve wikipedia for future generations of humankind.--Milowenthasspoken 06:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but proposing an editor for "deletion" is not something that warrants interaction ban. Some people here clearly lack sense of humor. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin User:AntonioMartin repeatedly adding unsourced information on a BLP[edit]

AntonioMartin has been desysopped by Arbcom--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The admin User:AntonioMartin is repeatedly adding unsourced information to Xavier Serbiá's BLP, while still reverting many (if not all) of other unrelated edits I did (like formatting references, adding sections, adding wikilinks...)

He failed to reply at his talk page. --damiens.rf 16:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's some rather awful edit-warring from both sides. AntonioMartin is trying to add obviously unsuitable material (trivial and with unreliable sources, though not an obvious BLP violation that would justify violations of otherwise bright-line rules to remove it); both sides are blatantly revert-warring without using the talkpage; Damiens is making wrong accusations of "vandalism". Can somebody give me a good reason for not blocking both parties? Fut.Perf. 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I'll give you a reason (not necessarily a good one, YMMV etc) - since nobody else appears to be working on the article, full-protect it for three days or so and tell the pair of them to thrash it out on talk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to go with Ritchie's suggestion. While a block would be hard to argue with for AntonioMartin, Damiens is a slightly trickier call (I wouldn't block, but wouldn't complain very strongly if someone did). Some of his edits at the article aren't reverts, and he's not blind reverting like AntonioMartin. Still, the false vandalism claim always sticks in my craw, and things are out of control there. I'm going to go ahead and full protect, and if blocks are handed out by others the protection can be removed. I'll leave a note for AntonioMartin so he understands editing through full protection will be considered a Very Big Deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Do we let users put a long autobiography on their talk pages now? WP:USERBIO suggests AntonioMartin's is far too detailed. Ah, looking at it again, it also has information about other living people, some not flattering. I'd say his userpage is a BLP violation itself. I note he became an Admin 16 September 2002 - things were rather different then. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Yes, all of these things, together, personally make me concerned about this person having "the bit" – is there an Admin review process (aside from ARBCOM)? Should that be pursued in this case?... --IJBall (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never understood the issue with long biographies; the guy's been around for 13 years and made 23,600 edits, why not cut him some slack? The unflattering info about other people using their real names is an issue, and should probably be dealt with. By someone besides me, as I've got to leave. But start with discussion, not outright removal. I'd say it's far too early to talk about "admin review" (which means "ArbCom", there is no other process), wait to see what he says first. No need to go off half-cocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, I have no desire to go off to ARBCOM on my end, if that's the only avenue here! --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If an admin is making page edits that violate policy, nothing prevents them from being blocked like anyone else. Arbcom is only needed if you think they are misusing their admin powers. User:AntonioMartin's logs show hardly any use of admin powers in the year 2015, a few routine moves and deletions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth remembering that there's been a rather long history of clashes between Damiens.rf and AntonioMartin (and his father, Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs)) over Puerto Rico topics. One such clash last year involved a rather blatant case of misuse of admin tools on Antonio's part (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Admin undeleted an article); others have included wikihounding accusations against Damiens. On the present article, interactions and problematic editing by Antonio and/or Marine go back to at least 2011. Fut.Perf. 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, then if the protection ultimately doesn't work then an interaction ban might be the next step? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm reluctant about interaction bans in cases where a pattern of (possibly) mutually bad behaviour is overlaid on a pattern of (unilaterally) bad content edits, which might be the case here. If Antonio has a history of making poor content edits of the type shown here, and nobody except Damiens has been cleaning them up, then to impose an interaction ban, however much it might be justified on behavioral grounds, would have the effect of preventing necessary cleanup of content, which must be the highest priority. Fut.Perf. 17:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In a discussion at the top of this page, we have an admin making a questionable and probably incorrect call re content policy, which was accepted by some as gospel because it was by an admin. Here we have an admin behaving the way an admin shouldn't be behaving. What are the "red lines" that admins are not supposed to cross before they aren't admins anymore? Are there any? Are they pretty much in the clear as long as they don't abuse their tools, or should they be removed because they simply aren't qualified? Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That, in a nutshell, is my concern as well. Thanks for putting this into words, Coretheapple! But I am definitely concerned here, on my end, as we have an Admin who got 'the bit' when Wikipedia was in its infancy, and who has subsequently behaved in a such a way that they certainly would not get through a RfA if they applied today. To me, a "they don't use their tools much" defense isn't really enough of a comfort – we potentially have someone who is "under-qualified" to have tools, and has over an over 10-year period not displayed the type of behavior we expect in an Admin. Fut.Perf.'s points above are especially disquieting. (FTR, I am not in the "cabal" that likes to push for every Admin to lose privileges at the smallest perceived "infraction" – this is literally the first case I have even seen of someone who has Admin privileges who I am starting to wonder if maybe they shouldn't...) --IJBall (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The only options are voluntary resignation or Arbcom. An admin is unlikely to have the bit removed by Arbcom without tool misuse, or really series violations not involving the tools. Monty845 18:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
He last blocked someone in 2009, last protected a page in 2012. He's used his ability to delete this month. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So what is the point of him having tools? What Monty845 says is an accurate statement of fact, and I hope that it is kept in mind the next time someone laments about the so-called admin shortage, or why RfAs are such a difficult hurdle to pass. It's for that very reason: because an inept administrator can't be removed on that basis alone. There have to be serious violations or tool abuse. As long as the hurdles for removal are very high, the hurdles to become an admin will be equally high. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
As long as there isn't serious tool misuse that would cause a desysoping, tools can only be given up voluntarily or taken away after three years of complete inactivity. I've seen "active" admins who had 7 edits over three years time and they are still admins. As long as this admin is making edits, the tools won't be removed. It just takes one edit every three years to retain the mop. If you want that changed, go to the Village pump! But it might be a perennial proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, Fut.Perf.'s link to the earlier ANI thread shows that there was tool misuse, last year. And the only reason a WP:RfC about that wasn't held was apparently due to a technical mistake. Now, no one took that situation to ARBCOM at the time, which in retrospect may have been a mistake. On my end, I'd definitely feel more comfortable if this Admin turned in their bit voluntarily (esp. since they don't even seem to be using their tools now), but I suspect that won't be happening... I think this situation does point up an obvious flaw in the current system. --IJBall (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── An admin(!) is putting unsourced info into an article and is edit warring. He doesn't answer for his actions in his talk page, as required of all admins. The same admin has misused his tools in the past. There's no big moral dilemma here - block the admin for whatever seems an appropriate time. If the other edit has been edit warring as well, block him for a time appropriate for *his* actions (not necessarily an equivalent amount of time). What's the big discussion? BMK (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

At the time of writing, AntonioMartin's contributions show that he has not edited Wikipedia since 11:11 on 20 May, which is before this thread was created. Let's see if he plans to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that maybe a review of AM's adminship is in order now. An edit warring admin who has a past history of abusing his tools? And man does his blocking log confuse the hell out of me. Given how inactive they are with their tools, I don't think it would be much harm if they lost adminship anyway. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
How many times can a guy get "accidentally blocked"? BMK (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh. In AntonioMartin's defense, a lot of that "accidentally blocked" stuff in his log happened in 2006. So that part, at least, doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion... Face-wink.svg --IJBall (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe, we'll see, but first I really want to know how it is even possible to get "accidentally blocked" 16 times in six months? Was he caught up in IP range blocks? Was there a six-month wheel war with a (hopefully) non-deposed admin? Was he doing to to himself? Was there then, and is there still now, a CIR problem with this editor? When ArbCom looks at desysoppings (and I am not advocatng that this should go to ArbCom on the basis of the information here), they look for a pattern of behavior, but a pattern of behavior is impossible to look for if one throws out old information as being too stale to consider. BMK (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Before July 2006, an IP block caused an autoblock of *every single* user on an IP address, no matter their status, so admins regularly got caught in IP blocks; there was no way to disable autoblocks in those days. See the infamous bug 550 (the link to Bugzilla is intentional). Graham87 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Graham87: Thanks, I was wondering if it was something systemic like that. BMK (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The Xavier Serbia article was done during my infancy at Wikipedia. I think I should just try to find references on the information in there. BUT ALSO I have to note, the information which made Damiens start this with, is actually referenced. I know the link is a YouTube video, but if this YouTube video, in which we see the act ACTUALLY HAPPENING, is not a reliable source, then I do not know what is.
Also note that Damiens calls this vandalism when if you look at MY particular history, you will see that I clearly do not. Damiens' attitude towards me and my father borders on obsession. He keeps an eye on everything we do, our history and even my dad being awarded by the Puerto Rican government for his work at Wikipedia notwithstanding.
As far as the other thing, I have from time to time used my tools the right way and the one time I used it the wrong way was without the intention of hurting Wikipedia. Only one time in 13 years, I think that record speaks for itself. The main reason i am at Wikipedia, however, is because I love informing people, and sometimes I admit that I forget about doing other things I should do more often. There was in particular one time when I thought everything was written about at Wikipedia and I admit I only visited to read and learn myself during that time but generally my passion has been in writing and informing. But i understand what you all say and am trying to remember carrying on the other things administrators are supposed to do. Antonio Macho Macho Macho Martin (haw haw!) 05:51, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Ooops...I wasn't signed when I wrote that. I apologize. Antonio Nacho Nacho Nacho Martin (haw haw!) 05:57, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Antonio, you can still contribute as much as you want to Wikipedia, but you don't need to be an Admin to do that – most of the people posting on this board are non-Admins, and we do just fine. If you aren't really using your Admin tools anyway, maybe it would be best to voluntarily resign them, and focus on content creation... --IJBall (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we should steer away the discussion from the use or non-use of admin tools, as that wasn't involved in this latest incident at least (it's only a matter of background regarding the wider-ranging situation). As far as the present situation is concerned, Antonio, I'm much more worried about your reaction to the charge of edit-warring. You have reinstated that "Caracas" bit 12 times in the course of a month, without a single posting on the talkpage and without a single comment in an edit summary, misusing the rollback feature at least three times in the process (incidentally, that in fact is an abuse of the tools – if you weren't an admin, I would take away your rollback bit now, but since you're an admin I technically can't). You also made at least two large-scale blanket reverts of multiple positive article improvements at once, again without any kind of argument or justification. Surely you realize that simply saying "but it was sourced after all" isn't a convincing thing to justify yourself in this situation? Fut.Perf. 05:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the guy admits to his "using tools the wrong way" once, you admit that his use of rollback (an admin tool in his circumstance) was incorrect, and that rollback would be removed from a non-admin editor. How, then, can be "steer away" from his use of tools when it enters into this very incident?
I admit that going to ArbCom over this seems like making a huge fuss over nothing, but considering the amount that AntonioMartin actually uses his tools (very, very minimally) the percentage of misuse is disturbingly high. Given his lack of use and his stated goals, I don't see where he really needs the tools, and would suggest that perhaps the easiest course would be for Antonio to give up the bit voluntarily, under a cloud. BMK (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not really over nothing. Arbcom appears to be the only solution when admins shouldn't be admins. The current system, as has been made clear, makes it easy for admins to stay admins even if they shouldn't be, even if they don't use their tools very much and misuse them when they do. It's as if being an admin is an irrevocable privilege, like being an federal appeals court judge, and not just a regular Wiki user with added tools. Rather than throw up our hands in situations like this, perhaps Arbcom should be deployed more often than it has, and employ broader criteria than the really narrow and extreme circumstances that it utilizes. Also I just looked at his user page. WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
We expect admins to at least understand the rules. When an admin engages in edit warring we are justifiably alarmed. How can they take part in enforcing the rules if they don't follow them themselves? It seems to me that Antonio should make a blanket statement that he intends to follow policy in the future, both WP:EW and WP:BLP. He should promise to follow the requirements for use of Rollback. If we don't get a satisfactory answer, that is prima facie reason to go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I still think it's a waste of time to go to arbcom given that the misuse of tools seems to be minimal (and a lot of that seems to be rollback) even if it may be a fairly high percentage. Perhaps if there was continued misuse of admin tools (including roll back) after repeated warnings, but I'm not really seeing that. The wider behaviour is concerning but we don't need arbcom to deal with that. There's nothing stopping us warning, topic banning or plain banning or blocking an admin if it becomes necessary. If the admin unblocks themselves then we can go to arbcom or more likely just request an emergency de-sysoping but I doubt that will be necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the last incident that FPaS linked to took place just last year, and buried in that report was another, similar incident (i.e. a "silent" recreation by AM of an article he created which had been deleted) reported by JzG which took place in 2009. So, just this one incident? nothing else in the last 11 years? ... not so much.
Incidentally, in the discussion of that incident from last year, AM's attitude is rather pugnacious and disrespectful towards the community. Given his attitude, his lacksadaisical use of the tools, his explicit rejection of giving them up voluntarily, and his incidents of misuse, this is really not the kind of person we need as an admin. He's certainly not contributing to any back-up problems, and seems to see the mop as a medal of some sort, not as an active obligation of service to the community. BMK (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I reluctantly reach similar conclusions. The problem is that our hands seem tied here – the current infraction isn't worth going to ARBCOM (at least, not so far), and I'm sure last year's infraction would be considered " Stale". So I'm not sure there's anything to be done. But, as I said above, this situation definitely points up flaws in the system, as here we have someone who's an Admin who quite probably shouldn't be, but there's nothing the community can really do about that. It suggests that some kind of reform may be needed, but I'm not even sure exactly what that should look like... --IJBall (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what it should be, or what the "proper" venue or precedure is, as a matter of sheer practicality, it is virtually impossible to "reform" Wikipedia. It can "evolve", certainly, but (contradictorily) only in two directions: more and more procedures can be added to existing procedures, or existing procedures can be lopped off and totally discontinued without replacement. (I'm not sure exactly why that is, but I think it has something to do with tension between the libertarian underpinnings of Wikipedia and the need for regularity and due process.) What can't be done -- at least in my observation -- is to scrap a structure which isn't working and replace it with another that might work. Which is why Wikipedia is perhaps in need of a firm but altruistic dictator -- something Jimbo never was and is apparently incapable of being by his very nature -- a deus ex machina to descend from the rafters just in time to settle all affairs and then depart the scene, leaving everyone unhappy in his wake, but new ways of doing things set in place. BMK (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But, in the meantime, there being no other choice, AM should be hauled before ArbCom. BMK (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Meh This is a pretty tame incident. I'd suggest AM just be more careful with the tools, and possibly have some chats with other admins about current practices. That Youtube link doesn't look so bad to me. It's to a TV show (news/entertainment I guess) about the described incident, on the show's official youtube channel, so it's at least plausibly relevant, and disputing it should be a routine matter of content discussion on the talk page. One can call it a lousy source, but it's completely wrong to say that it's not a source at all. BMK: really, there's too much procedure,[10] and lopping off is the right thing. Procedures expanded as Wikipedia did until 2009 or so, and then Wikipedia started shrinking but procedures kept expanding. Rather than procedures or dictators we just need reasonable numbers of editors who know what they're doing and aren't too obnoxious most of the time (we have that), and to get rid of some of the perverse incentives for bad editing (we could fix most of that by adding one line to one page on the site). (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Well no one is stopping you BMK bringing an arbcom case. I still think that would be an epic waste of time (and I say this whether or note arbcom even takes the case). I stick by my above comment that the bigger problem is more general editing. To give a good example of this, while the full protection has stopped the edit warring, it hasn't yet achieved the wider desired effect. The most recent discussion on Talk:Xavier Serbiá remains something from 2013. Nor is there anything at WP:BLP/N. So the only discussion seems to be that done via edit summaries, that above and that on User talk:AntonioMartin#Adding unreferenced information to BLPs is vandalism. Hopefully the edit warring is not going to restart after the protection expired but if it does, this doesn't look good for anyone involved. But if it does happen, we can start to look at sanctions which don't need to involve arbcom. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and all of that is fine. But it doesn't get to the other point, and that is – Is this an editor that should have Administrator privileges?! Based on the pattern of behavior here, apparently over years, many of us feel the answer is "no", and yet there is no real avenue here for "Administrator review" (or, maybe something like, "reelection" or "reaffirmation") outside of the arduous ArbCom process which no one wants to engage in unless an Admin has gone on a virtual rampage and "set the house on fire" or done some shady COI stuff. That's a flaw in the system. --IJBall (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The thing is I never commented on whether or not the system was flawed as I do not believe this is a useful place to discuss that as it will achieve little. I simple said I did not believe going to arbcom would be a useful activity in this case. If you want to change the system I really have little idea how you can actually achieve that but I do have a good idea that a discussion on the flaws here is nearly as much a pointless waste of time as taking AM to arbcom. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. An admin who removes a source and adds in unreferenced material to a BLP [11] and then edit-wars over it (together with the previous issues mentioned above and the lack of admin activity), needs to be put before ArbCom. It's no wonder that many editors have a negative view of admins when the reaction of the community to something like that is "that's a minor issue". Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone has their own list of admins who they think are harming the project, and obviously it's the most active ones who have the most capacity for harm. AM based on something like this would be pretty far down my list. AM, could you have a (maybe private) conversation with someone like Floquenbeam? BMK and Black Kite are right that the way you are editing is way outside of admin expectations in 2015 even if it was ok 10 years ago. But, given today's excessive bureaucracy and the well-known brokenness of current RFA, I'd rather not go around desysopping anyone without seeing a level of conflict and disruption equivalent to other disputes which end that way, and I don't see that here. (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, but I never said it's a minor issue. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BMK (yes, really!) and Black Kite. The history on the article in question should be enough to get any editor a block. For someone who is an admin, it is simply unacceptable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it seems as if Antonio should not have involved himself in a war-editing situation, even though his version of the article was much better then the Demiens decimated version. However, some of you should stop throwing all the caca on Antonio as if this was a Damiens Club. After all, it takes two to tango and both are experienced editors who should have known better. Antonio should have added references to the article and both of them should have discussed their issues on the articles talk page. Damiens in the past has attacked articles related to his family, he even managed to have an article on Antonio's grandfather, a pioneer in the New York-Puerto Rican community deleted and cropped images removing any member of his family. He has gone to the extent with his edits as if he were in an Anti-Puerto Rican agenda. Therefore. instead of concentrating on the faults of one user, let us condemn the actions of both and request that from now on instead of edit-warring they first try to solve their issues on the "talk pages" and if they can not agree, then have a neutral mediator interfere. Le Pato Frances (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Damiens is not an admin, and admins are supposed to know better, and to lead by example. The two articles mentioned below actually indicate a CIR problem to me, something I've never seen in an admin. BMK (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But Damiens has nothing to do with Productos Ochsi, an article AM just created on an obscure Paraguayan food company of no evident notability, which he sourced to this website, which doesn't even mention the company, and this website which makes a passing reference to the company as it made the meat for a record-setting hot dog. And how about the sourcing for another article he just created, Open Road Brands? Look OK to you? A Pep Boys listing, the Yellow Pages, and the company website? Do either of these articles look as if they were created by someone who should be an administrator? Just run the tool,look at the articles he has recently created, especially the ones on obscure companies, and judge for yourself. (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Both articles are now at AfD. Even more worrying is his keep rationale at one of them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this must be the first time that I've had to explain the difference between a proposed deletion and an AfD to an admin! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like we're at a crossroads here – Do we take this to ArbCom? (And, if so, who is "we" in this case?...) Or not? --IJBall (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be very happy if nothing was done. Let the situation fester. Let an admin continue to keep his tools even though he creates non-notable articles, has no apparent grasp of content policy, doesn't seem to understand the deletion process, and keeps tools he doesn't use as a kind of merit badge as someone pointed out. It's the best argument I've found for why the system is FUBAR, and why it's essential to keep the barriers high at RfA. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Striking out per below, overtaken by events. Coretheapple (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently Arbcom is already involved, according to posts on his talk page and on the talk page of an arbitrator. I was about to point out that however this is resolved, it is imperative to scrutinize articles created by AntonioMartin. But I was caught up short by this startling comment on an arbitrator's talk page in which Antonio indicated that the newly created account User:Le Pato Frances, which spoke up on his behalf very strongly above, is probably somebody "who lives in his house." Oh boy. Coretheapple (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So now we have meatpuppetry in a debate - to add to BLP issues, misuse of tools, lack of knowledge of content and deletion policy, creation of NN articles ... surely this needs to be an ArbCom case now? Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Arbcom is already involved. But whether it does or it doesn't, we have to think about the implications. We have a broken system, clearly. There needs to be a mechanism that allows ordinary users to come to arbcom and express concerns about particular admins without feeling that their only remedy is ANI and that they are going to be subjected to "boomerang." I realize that boomerang is an important principle. But it also prevents non-admins from "blowing the whistle" when they have a concern about an admin, as there would be a realistic concern that admins will circle the wagons and trump up a case against them. Damiens deserves credit for coming to ANI despite that possibility and despite a block record that made him appear particularly vulnerable. Indeed, immediately after this discussion began there was talk of blocking him or, insanely, even an interaction ban. There needs to be a "non-boomerangable" mechanism for admins to be held to account for misbehavior/misconduct/incompetence short of the gross misuse of tools that ordinarily is required to get them de-adminned. Coretheapple (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the obvious sock/meatpuppet, and have come around to the point of view that the best thing would be a quiet resignation of the admin tools, and the next best thing would be an arbcom case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
"If you are Antonio, shame on you."[12] That's what happens when a admin creates a sockpuppet. He gets a "tsk tsk"? Coretheapple (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh screw you. If I could prove it was him, I'd block him. I can't. This "there must be a cabal" is so fucking tiresome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You just said on his talk page a couple of minutes ago "I find it too hard to believe that User:Le Pato Frances, an account who was created to revert/attack User:Damiens.rf, is not either you, or not someone you were aware of and did nothing about." It looks to me that this is a situation in which an ordinary user is blocked but an admin simply loses tools is politely asked to resign tools that he should be losing anyway for other reasons. Not a "cabal" situation but an admin getting special treatment, to risk stating the obvious. Coretheapple (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There are 6 edits. Over 1 year. Taken with everything else, it is enough to push me over the edge to at least support bit removal. On its own, I don't think it's block-worthy, for an admin or for a non-admin. Kind of like the difference between "a preponderance of evidence" in a civil trial and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial. If some other admin disagrees and thinks there is "proof" of socking or intentional recruitment, they'll block him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the sock's contributions? So what you're saying that if I create a sock now and only use him sparingly, and only trot him out if I get in a jam, I won't blocked? Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No, no honest sentient human would think that's what I meant. I assume you know such rhetorical gamesmanship won't work with me; I hope it won't work with others reading this, but you never know. If any rational editor wants to discuss this with me further, they can come to my talk page, but I'm done here. Dealing with a hyena salivating at the smell of first blood is too depressing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Any "sentient human being" knows that "schoolyard insults" = "lost the argument." Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I can explain what happened. The house I rent is a house where many people live at, or stay (in fact tonight we have 6 people sleeping here plus the dogs) so many, many people have internet access through this computer, in fact, my dad, he does his edits from the same computer as me. My niece Isabel also has a Wikipedia membership that she created from here, but she doesn't come very often anymore so I know that was not her. So as far as "Pato Frances" now that one I don't know who made that but I suspect probably my sister or brother , or my mom, or one of my multiple nieces and nephews....the only ones I do not suspect of are my dad, my niece that has a user page, myself and my dog. All I can do is try to find out who did that because, even if he/she meant no harm to me or dad as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it still affects us. Sooo.....I guess I have not much else to say, and I do have to go get something from my room right now so the only thing left to say is, Thanks and God bless you! Antonio Buddah Martin (haw haw!) 13:42, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
You are just copy-pasting what you had already said on Courcelles talk page. Is there something new? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Antonio, every single one of the edits by that account was in opposition to Damiens, either reverting him, opposing an AfD by him, and, finally, coming here and not just supporting you but attacking him. It's as clear a WP:DUCK situation as I've ever seen. Claiming that somebody in your house just happened to set up an account that edits like you has no credibility and frankly makes thing worse. (Note that Antonio's comment was made at 12:51 but for some reason is date-stamped 13:42) Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
At least the dog is innocent. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Dad?[edit]

...or little brother? Seriously? Marine, please account for the situation in your house. It is unacceptable that two admins are under the same roof and we have sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going need to get answers for this. Your son has alluded that this might be you so this is indeed a problem which involves you. Admin accountability mandates a response. Your previous block was for a compromised account and Tony says everyone is using the same machine. What is going on?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually he said he didn't suspect his father. Re admin accountability, I'm less concerned with this particular instance than establishing a mechanism in which all the "Damiens" on this site can blow the whistle on admins without being subjected to retaliation (or as we call it, WP:BOOMERANG). Just as in the law there are special "summary proceedings" to evict tenants, perhaps the same kind of simple and retaliation-free mechanism is needed to hold admins accountable before arbcom. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed indef block for admin AntonioMartin[edit]

No consensus for a block on top of the demopping. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

NOTE: as of this posting, the subject of my proposal has been desysopped by ArbCom, for which I thank them. The fact that AntonioMartin did not do so himself, however, calls for an ongoing community discussion of sanctions up to and including an indef block, so I ask that this proposal, which I have again modified to reflect the circumstances, remain open. Jusdafax 20:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but the consensus has clearly shifted into demopping is enough. Given the circumstances it seems cruel to maintain the discussion but happy for any involved editor to revert my close if they genuinely believe good will come of it? Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Having waded through this entire thread and various subpages with considerable incredulity, I propose an indef block for this admin, until such time as they choose to respond resign as admin. We have to start drawing the line by holding those with extra buttons to a higher standard, and it's time to say enough is enough, right here, right now. My thanks to Coretheapple, who I am in complete agreement with.

  • Support as proposer. Jusdafax 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am underwhelmed by the response by AntonioMartin above, to put it as mildly as possible. I have struck through "respond" and added "resign as admin." After a suitable time, he can run for admin again. Jusdafax 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
As noted above, I have modified this proposal in view of the admin's desysop by ArbCom. I continue to support an indef block at this time. Jusdafax 20:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I support a block for AntonioMartin commensurate with his offense, which in this case is WP:DUCK sockpuppeting. It's an absolute insult to our intelligence to suggest that an ordinary editor caught trotting out a sock at an ANI would just get a "shame on you" as an outcome. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Support indef block based on his (AntonioMartin's) comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ADMINACCT, namely points #1 ("Bad faith" adminship (sock puppetry)), #4 (Failure to communicate) and #5 (Repeated or consistent poor judgment). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per others. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 13:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The evidence of misbehavior is clear and the defense provided is dubious at best. Deli nk (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support No doubt. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after carefully reading the above. Though, I don't think resigning tools should be an instant way back. This block would be for WP:DUCK socking, which requires a higher bar for unblocking than that. Consider a standard offer. Mamyles (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. My support was for an indef ban period, not for an indef ban to persuade him to give up his tools. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry this is too complicated for a bolded vote. The Le Pato Frances account is blocked because there is no conceivable explanation that would justify its use. If it can be proven that it is AntonioMartin's sock, or a recruited family member, then I support a 1 week to 1 month block, similar to what we would do for a non-admin in his position, and an ArbCom motion to desysop. If, as I suspect, this is a non-recruited family member who thinks he's "helping" attack an "enemy", I don't support a block on AntonioMartin, but I do support a desysop, because (a) it's hard to believe Antoniomartin didn't know about it, even if he didn't ask for it, and (b) it's the straw that broke the camel's back, when added to the issues above. So at this time, with the info we have, I oppose a block, but support an ArbCom case to desysop. Although I really wish there was a structured community desysop process, an unstructured adhoc process where we indef block until they resign their tools strikes me as far too prone to misuse. So even though only one or two people have proposed it, I specifically oppose a block to force tool resignation, regardless of what actually turns out to have happened here. --Floquenbeam (talk)15:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Since the "proof" that you seek is unobtainable, short of AntonioMartin admitting he did it, basically you're against a block. That's fine, so why not just say it? As for a structured desysop process, I definitely agree. If it wasn't for the obvious socking here, this would have died. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Floquenbeam plainly stated "... I oppose a block, ..." so he just said it. Face-smile.svg 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I would have said "I oppose a block, period" and left it at that. We get WP:DUCK situations all the time, and this is one of them. We should be forthright if we feel that this editor, though obviously socking, should be cut a break, because he has done such a good job as an admin or whatever. My point is that let's not pretend that it is not a duck and that it is quacking, that it is a "complicated" situation and that there are standards of "proof" that haven't been met. Bullfeathers. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as SNOW, and obviously support a "defrocking" here as well (yes, yes, I know it's "desysoping", but "defrocking" sounds "sexier"!). Geez, I go to bed for a few hours, and when I awake all Hell has broken loose! --IJBall (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In light of desysoping, I'm changing my vote to: support block of indeterminate duration. Regardless, the edit warring and puppeting cannot, and should not, be swept under the rug, so a block is still needed here. --IJBall (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:AntonioMartin desysopped. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(It's posted at the bottom of this page but not everyone may be reading the whole page). Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef as proposed. Former admin now de-sysoped. This should suffice for now. That, and AntonioMartin will now be under a microscope. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no need for an indef block. The behavior was substandard and that cost him his mop, which takes care of the principal concerns in this discussion. We would not indef an editor for something like this. Hopefully Antonio can now continue his Wikipedia activity as a productive editor and stay away from these types of actions and disputes. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indef is arguably excessive. But look, let's say this wasn't an admin, just an ordinary editor who created a sock. Would they be told "now that was naughty, don't do it again"? What would be the penalty? Surely there would be some kind of block. What gets under my skin is the attitude that admins are some kind of elevated personages, and that knocking them down by taking away their "mop" is sufficient punishment for actions that would get them blocked if they didn't have the "mop." Also, can we please stop using terms like "mop" in describing administrators? That's just plain phony. In practice it's a lot more, and we all know it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You want to make an example out of him? What purpose would that serve? The block in this case would be purely punitive at this point. He was hauled in here for behavior that would garner a warning for anyone else and a block if it continued, he's been de-mopped (sorry) already and I just don't see where this request for an indef block is coming from other than to "stick it to the man". Clearly admins are not above other editors when they do things like these - ARBCOM took care of that. So now we have some half-stale worrying behavior that got lost in the desysop discussion, and for which I don't think an indef block is merited unless it repeats itself in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure what else is there to do. Antonio is now just a normal editor, and that's what this discussion should center around. There shouldn't be an extraordinary punishment above the removal of his admin rights. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So don't indef block him. But nothing? Would an ordinary editor get nothing for socking? And no, losing the "mop" doesn't count. It's nothing. Hell it's just a mop. I've owned dozens over the years. Coretheapple (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit-war and risk and 48/72hr block. Being an admin who gets found out to use a sock account at a ANI discussion questioning their behaviour and get a strongly worded warning. Everyone get your second accounts ready for a wrist-slapping, just incase you get summoned to ANI in the future. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In normal circumstances, I wouldn't be opposed to a block of defined duration. I'm just not seeing how a block at this point would be preventative, and not punitive. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block per 78.26 and FreeRangeFrog. Losing the mop is enough. -- WV 19:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A similarly situated editor with the same past contributions to the project would at most be facing moderate duration block. We shouldn't punish more harshly just because the editor had the admin bit that was rarely used, particularly in light of the desysop. Monty845 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose AntonioMartin did not make the edits. Someone else in the house made the edits. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment With Floquenbeam's indef block of the sock, there is an accompanying autoblock (#6131380) of the IP used which is set to expire 2015-05-28 at 11:36 which means that the house computer and all editors behind it are essentially blocked if they still have same IP.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef Stick to the usual sanctions given to first time offenders. I frequently see, "Socks blocked indef, master blocked one week". --NeilN talk to me 20:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the removal of his admin rights is enough. (Off-topic) Speaking of which ... wow, becoming an administrator sure was easy back in 2003; this place sure has changed, and now, RFAs can be the most stressful thing an editor will ever have to go through, sometimes leading to retirement if the RFA fails. Amazing to think that AntonioMartin was one of our first admins ... they had the mop for over almost 12 years! Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems like over kill. They have been desysoped. Let it go for now. Any future problems can be addressed on an as needed basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talkcontribs) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Related proposal[edit]

I'm closing this as I really only wanted to assess whether this was broadly a good or bad idea, and there's a concurrent discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:AntonioMartin desysopped. I've taken this over to the Idea Lab for further discussion since this isn't really the appropriate place. Sam Walton (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Given the concerns above, and elsewhere, regarding admins who are only very mildly active and were made admins a long time ago, what are editors thoughts on an organised effort to investigate admins elected more than, say, 5-7 years ago to verify that the community still deems them qualified to be admins? This needn't be a strung out process for the obviously qualified and active admins, but it might be useful to check for other cases like this one where the user is only active enough to retain their adminship and isn't editing/acting in line with current practice and policy. Sam Walton (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be interested in what Beeblebrox has to say here. As a lowly member of the Peanut Gallery, I think that such a review would be a very good idea (though I don't expect them to find too many other cases like this one...). --IJBall (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
For sure. But what about a mechanism in which users, without being threatened with retaliation ("boomerang") can get arbcom or a committee thereof to review the behavior and, perhaps more importantly, the performance of administrators in general? If an admin is a good person but just inept, or knows the rules but is abusive (a common complaint, judging from a certain off-wiki site), then there should be some way to bring them to the attention of arbcom to be either mentored or upbraided or removed, if the charges are true. This current "nothing unless they are either socks or lunatics" stuff is strictly "for the birds," as my dad used to say. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't have a policy in place that would allow us to desysop them in such cases, unless you can stumble upon a smoking gun as occurred here. Without consensus for such a policy first, I don't think an admin review project would be very fruitful. Monty845 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no question that were it not for the socking there would have been no action in this particular situation. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Bear in mind this isn't necessarily a case of 'find who we can desysop', we of course want as many admins as possible, and I think this was a particularly bad case. In the case that a discussion decides that an admin should be desysopped, the available options will, it seems, amount to a strong suggestion that they voluntarily resign their tools or requiring ArbCom to agree to the consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, though I would appreciate the opinion of an arb on this, I think ArbCom would be able to desysop an admin if community consensus deemed that "the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions", per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that Monty has a point that under current procedures nobody, including this particular admin, would have been de-sysopped for simple incompetence. Whether there is a consensus for a change in the status quo is another matter. There certainly would be if admins were viewed as having a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I was responding to your 19:26 comment and didn't read your more recent one. You have a point. But note the way that is phrased. They're talking about extreme conduct. If an admin is simply insult happy and abusive, well that's just tough. Absolutely nothing, not even a firm finger-wagging. Coretheapple (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the concerns that has blocked past attempts for a de-sysop process is the fear that editors will use the process to retaliate against admins who make the hard decisions and/or to settle grudges. Imagine having to go through something similar to RFA, whenever a certain number of editors decided they wanted your head. I don't think anyone has come up with a particularly good solution to this. Monty845 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If there was such a thing as a "Vote of Confidence RfA", I'm unconvinced that any editor "cabal" would successfully be able to "desysop" an Admin if it wasn't legitimately warranted – there'd be too many other uninvolved editors that would be able to see through such a gambit. Further, there might be ways to prevent that further (perhaps requiring a certain specific threshold number of "oppose" votes being needed, rather than basing it on the rough "support-oppose" percentages...). In any case, while I like what I am seeing from what Sam Walton linked to above, re: Level II procedures, it does concern me that community involvement isn't specifically included in the provisions there. It seems to me if community involvement is specifically required for granting Admin privileges re: an RfA, community involvement should also be specifically included in at least some cases for desysopsing... --IJBall (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't think there is any need to do anything else with regard to Antonio at this time. I don't in the least believe his excuses, and neither did arbcom, hence the desysopping. Blocking on top of that seems punitive and I don't see how it would help Wikipedia.

That being said, I do believe (as I have stated elsewhere) that it may be time for a comprehensive review of the remaining admins that got it in the "no big deal" era, before 2007 or so when it bacame clear what a serious msitake it had been to hand out admin rights willy-nilly, often to users who had little to no idea what admins even do and have not kept up with the evolving standards of admin behavior. This was a problem that was "too big to solve" for a while, but with normal attrition as most have them have gone inactive that is no longer the case.

To be clear, I am not and would not propose that they all be sumarrily desysopped or anything like that. However, a comprehensive review of those that remain, and perhaps a requirement that those found to be lacking demonstrate knowledge of current policies may be in order. Over and over again we have seen out-of-touch admins, some of whom barely use their tools and seem to make the absolute minimum effort required to keep them, making serious errors when they do actually take an admin action. I am speaking in particular about blocking, which I think most of us agree is the admin tool witht he greatest potental for misuse and creating drama. How this would work, and under whose authority it would be done are not questions I have answers to, but it may be time to start seriously discussing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The current proposal may be out of place here since this isn't an incident and local consensus will not affect policy or procedures. Suggest that this is taken to Village Pump (policy) as the proper venue to involve the community-at-large.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I really only asked here to get a general idea of whether this was a good idea or if there was an obvious flaw I was missing. Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much where I'm at as well, I wasn't intending to actually try and establish such a thing via ANI. I can't imagine that ending well. I'm out of the creating giant policy RFCs game for the moment as well, so if there is real interest in this someone else can put their head on the chopping block over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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 [13], 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" [14]. 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[15]. 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 [16] [17] 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" [18] [19], 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)

Apparent dispute over Semion Mogilevich and meddling with a userpage.[edit]

Not really sure what to do with this, actually, since things have changed over my time in Wikipedia... Couple of IPs (probably used by the same person) have been re-inserting apparent POV link to Semion Mogilevich (edit history). IPs in question have left comments threatening to report me and User:Andhisteam to request bans and the like. Now those IPs have also edited my user page with similar comments and threats (I took a liberty of reverting the changes in my user page). I might have got somewhat annoyed in the process, commenting in one IP page. If there really has been reports or ban requests targeting me, I don't know about them. IPs apparently involved are User: and User: but they are probably dynamic and going to change in the future so I am not sure what IP I should be sending further comments to. I'd rather not get involved with a fruitless edit war with those but have apparently been involved against my wishes. I leave to your judgement of what could be done, if anything. - Skysmith (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note here: The IPs are a part of a corp, and do change. Some advice is if you must say anything to them, say it to whichever acted last. Also, due to this, it is quite likely that it is the same person making these edits. As well, I am watching the page, and will step to help. -- Orduin Discuss 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
After reviewing a request for page protection on this article (which I denied), I decided to perform 2 blocks. One, a rangeblock on and one on an account, likely the same person, Lemma2Lemma. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Next IP User:, another IP involved with the same page - Skysmith (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Given that the user is hopping outside the blocked range, I have semi-protected the page for now. Pinging @Rjd0060: to check if the range-block can/need be undone ie if there are other users on it. Abecedare (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Abecedare, I think it would be wise to leave the block in place. It was a very small range (<300 IPs) and he used many of them. Unless we get any unblock requests showing collateral damage, I'd assume that was his primary range and unblocking it would be counterproductive at this time. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing, removal of sourced material[edit]

Tobby72 is warned against forum shopping and counseled to file a request at AE if there are further disputes regarding Ukrainian conflicts. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I would like to highlight the case of tendentious editing by some editors.

We need as many uninvolved admins as possible keeping an eye on more or less all Ukrainian conflict-related articles. There's a never-ending edit war going on there.


Removal of well sourced material. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive. An editor keeps deleting content which he disagrees with.


Here are a few examples. 2014 - April 2015: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. May 2015: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

Violation of WP:NPOV policy:

WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.

Excuses for POV-blanking:

"There is no consensus for these changes", or "WP:UNDUE" (In other words, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)

or "doesn't belong here": diff, diff, diff, diff.

See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed. Tobby72: Restored, Bobrayner: Removed, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

and here: Tobby72: Added poll, Volunteer Marek: Removed, MyMoloboaccount: Restored, RGloucester: Removed. Haberstr: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

Further discussion here:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – Ukraine conflict.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – Continued POV-pushing – May 2015.

Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Breedlove, Soros, Der Spiegel

Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - POV blanking

Talk:War in Donbass – POV blanking of sourced material

User talk:EdJohnston - Volunteer Marek – 2

At least 12 editors: MyMoloboaccount, Tosha, Anonimski, Darouet, Buzz105, Jirka.h23, Herzen, Haberstr, HCPUNXKID, Leftcry, KoolerStill, Lunch for Two, seem to agree with me.

I totally agree with User:Darouet:[20]

To be honest, looking through many of the edits discussed here, it doesn't seem to me that Tobby72 is editing from a "pro-Kremlin" perspective. Often, their edits are qualifying or simply represent the "other side," without removing material. By contrast, RGloucester, Marek, raynor, Tlsandy appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major politicians, news sources, or even public opinion polls, as intolerable. All of us have responsibility for maintaining a neutral point of view and a friendly editing environment. I'm afraid that by repeatedly sanctioning this kind of editing we've enabled behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on this encyclopedia, and encourages only the most partisan editors to enter into the fray. That is *not* the decision we need to make.

Is there anything that either I or an admin can do about continuous POV pushing and removal of sourced material?

Thanks for taking a look and sharing your opinion. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you make a list of involved articles?
This one is odd.
What is he talking about when he talks about "discussed, agreed upon"? Can you find out?

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What he probably means is Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation – POV blanking
or Latest outrage: excluding opinion polls that show Crimeans overwhelmingly support unification with Russia
Yet another person who has doubts - diff, diff.
The (probably incomplete) list:
Add *Federal Reserve System to your list. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you're going to get "as many uninvolved admins as possible" User:Tobby72 but I'm certainly an uninvolved long-term editor in good standing; I took a look and am willing to share my opinion. I picked an article at random which you fought for in one of your edit wars very recently. It is called "Breedlove's Bellicosity," Spiegel Online, March 6, 2015. What I found was a piece of low-brow tabloid stock journalism with expressions like: "hawks in Washington", "Putin, the 59-year-old ... upped the ante", "The Super Hawk", the 'Super Hawk' Victoria Nuland", "False claims and exaggerated accounts" (!) from NATO ... and on, and on. – Do you realize Tobby72 that the real problem might actually be you, and not the Wikipedians in your laundry basket? Poeticbent talk 00:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion (though I don't think Der Spiegel is tabloid). -- Tobby72 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line, this is a content dispute, well beyond the scope of ANI. There is nothing "actionable" for Admins here. You would have thought that might have sunk in when Admin EdJohnston took no action (and, in fact, didn't even comment on his Talk page)... --IJBall (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Other editors' comments:
  • User:HaberstrIn conclusion, obviously Volunteer Marek is putting a lot of effort into pushing me and other editors who do not share his point of view away from editing Ukraine-related articles. This is part of a long-standing practice on his and like-minded editors part, and the results are horribly POV Ukraine-related articles. He and like-minded editors do this through these repetitive, hostile, and time-wasting appeals for administrative action, through creating extremely toxic, abusive-language filled and bad-faith-assuming environments on talk pages, and by reverting even the most innocuous edits by editors who do not share their POV. I suggest surveying his style and behavior and applying sanctions on Marek in order to deter his worst excesses.[21]
  • User:MyMoloboaccountThere is definitely a issue in these articles being edited by dedicated users who have certain POV. Tobby72 is right that this violates NPOV and other guidelines. There have been numerous examples where reliable sources and information has been removed time and time again under flimsy pretexts, and attempts to present a more nuanced view with neutral description have been opposed, at times very aggressive and with use of vulgarisms.[22]
  • User:Darouet: — To be honest, looking through many of the edits discussed here, it doesn't seem to me that Tobby72 is editing from a "pro-Kremlin" perspective. Often, their edits are qualifying or simply represent the "other side," without removing material. By contrast, RGloucester, Marek, raynor, Tlsandy appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major politicians, news sources, or even public opinion polls, as intolerable.[23]
  • User:ToshaI support Tobby72. All my attempts to make this article neutral were failed. IMHO this article is shame for wikipedia. Returning POV tag is the least we can do.[24] -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I have to disagree with IJBall that this is a content dispute, and I truly hope that Tobby72 gets clobbered by the boomerang s/he deserves. Tobby72 is WP:FORUMSHOPPING yet again, and I will reiterate the differences provided by that editor in order that it be evaluated from the forum shopping perspective: see this, this, this and this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. This is not indicative of a content dispute, but Tobby72's refusing to accept NPOV and trying to WP:CRUSH any opposition to their POV.
Tobby72, you keep bringing the same differences to talk pages and other boards, invoking comments by users over a protracted period of time (that is, over at least a year's worth of discussion and editing) including editors who have been sanctioned from editing Eastern European articles. You consistently fail to respond to observations that these comments and edits are not indicative of the true consensus of dozens of other editors who have developed the articles on a regular/daily basis. You've also continuously PUSHed the limits as regards gaming the system, ducking in and out of editing various articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine every time you understand that you've become too obtrusive. Taking a very short-term break from your involvement when EdJohnston was involved in examining your editing patterns was an unabashedly cynical act of trying to fly under the radar.
At best, you are a disruptive editor on Eastern European articles. Such an evaluation of the NOTHERE gaming is, however, an underestimation of your forum shopping, crying incivility, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about numerous editors. There is nothing honest about your approach in order to wear your perceived 'opponents' down. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: Iryna Harpy is editor directly involved in constant edit-warring & removal of sourced content, see diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an issue that goes back a long way and needs to be acknowledged and addressed by Marek so we can all move forward. Quis separabit? 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If there is anything here for attention by administrators (I do not really see it), this should be brought to AP:AE, as author of this request should be well aware. Linking to discussions with an administrator who is active on WP:AE, but bringing this here is a battleground approach and waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note to uninvolved editors: Edit-warring & removal of sourced material by User:My very best wishes. This is what I've been talking about, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, Robert! -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a classic WP:ARBEE problem. I think that Tobby72 would benefit from a trip to arbitration enforcement, sooner rather than later. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Are these edits legitimate?: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff"rv the usual Serb sock" - WP:WIAPA?, diff"rv the usual Serb sock", diff"rv stalker." - WP:ESDOS?, diff"restoring sourced content. Quit it." - WP:RS?. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Toby72, you really need to drop it. NOT ONLY have you been told more than a half a dozen times that consensus is against you, but you've ALSO been told more than a half a dozen times (that's not hyperbole, it *really* has been more than that) to quit it with the endless, time wasting, tendentious, obnoxious and tedious WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You not only have maxed out the violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and plain ol' disruptive editing, you're well into the WP:NOTHERE territory. I.e. your value added to this project is significantly negative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What consensus am I violating? Please provide me the related talk page discussion where a consensus is found. Clearly there is no consensus among editors. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive or boomerang?[edit]

There's clearly nothing to do here unless the OP needs a boomerang block for forum shopping and trying to abuse process to gain advantage in a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There's good reason for a boomerang but a warning may simply be effective if they have not done anything like this before.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering this appears to be a long-term pattern with the original poster, I'd recommend something like a final warning from an Admin, along with a close of this... --IJBall (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I will respect your decision, whatever it may be, but does it mean that you've sanctioned behaviour of Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy and similarly minded editors i.e. massive, systematic removal of well sourced material with a POV they dislike? Ukraine-related articles have been jealously guarded by several editors who have certain POV and any attempt to improve has been blocked. You're shooting the messenger and assuming bad faith on my part instead of focusing on the real issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
While I'd accept a final warning, I have sincere and well founded reasons to believe that the user will resume the same disruptive pattern after X period of time in order to allow their battleground attitude to have 'gone away', and believe that boomerang is in order. Recent good faith opportunities have been proffered (such as this), and multiple warnings have been issued on the various talk pages. I'll provide a comprehensive list of diffs if it's deemed to be necessary, but prefer to keep this comment as brief as possible at this point.
The fact of the matter is that this is not a unique event in Tobby72's editing behaviour as regards AE articles. This is evidenced by the user's last interactions on recent events surrounding the crisis in Ukraine around the end of 2014, whereupon the user recognised that s/he was on the brink of being taken before an ANI or AE and backed off, only to resume activities a few months later (such as here).
While I recognise that Tobby72 is encouraged/egged on by other problem contributors, the user is hardly a newbie, and there is no excuse for usurping civil discussions as to content with tracts of examples of 'dissent' by POV editors cherry picked from over a year's discussion, as exemplified here. This has undoubtedly impacted on new contributors backing away from good faith editing and discussion of controversial topics here on 24 March 2015 (see this new contributor's edit history here, with Tobby72 (in tandem with others on 31 March 2015) having created a toxic talk page atmosphere where genuine attempts to discuss issues are consistently disrupted in an unmistakeably WP:POINTy manner. This is why Tobby72 and the other editor were brought to EdJohnston's attention on his talk page.
On a final note, even the excerpt from user Darouet is misleading, having been cherry picked to make a POINT. In fact, Darouet's observation was directed to me. The full comment here was a good faith attempt to engage with me on the NPOV/N as I have a good and respectful working relationship with the user, as with other editors who are HERE whether or not we agree on content issues. I'm sorry to say that I didn't respond there simply because the so-called discussion was being falsely kept from being archived by means of gaming. Should Darouet be reading this, I extend my sincerest apologies as I was not avoiding him/her, but was not prepared to duplicitously resuscitate a FORUMSHOPPING section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Iryna, may I remind you that the assumption of good faith is a core principle here.
The severe toxicity of the Ukraine-related articles where genuine attempts to discuss issues are consistently disrupted can be seen here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tobby72:, one point here: good faith tends to expire when Tendentious editing takes place. You have been told repeatedly that Consensus is against you in including that reference, as it's considered to be WP:UNDUE – at this point, it's best to Drop the stick, and move on. Failure to do so could probably be considered "bad faith". Bottom line: you're not going to win every argument on Wikipedia, even when you think you are "right". --IJBall (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it's a good idea. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Couple of rangeblocks needed[edit]

Well, it looks like I've managed to upset someone, and now I have the pleasure of being hounded by an IP user hopping across a couple of ranges. From what I'm seeing, the ranges are pretty much and Could someone help out and drop a couple of rangeblocks down to stop this silliness please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: I can only find 3 IPs in that range, giving (covers 256 IP addresses). Have you got any other candidates in that range? --Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, they're all pretty small ranges right now. The WHOIS data for some of the IPs in this range doesn't even seem to exist yet; for example, didn't produce much of the more detailed parts on the WHOIS check (ie, the bits in the dark grey box) when I first checked it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I saw that. I did;;, all for 24 hours. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: Just got back from the symphony, it looks like the activity stopped about 30 minutes ago (likely because you too stopped editing). Range for these two is (covers just 64 IP addresses). I'm not inclined to block unless the activity resumes. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That's fine, just want to make sure that you're up to date on what was going on. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmargi yet again[edit]


Things were said, feelings were hurt... We will hope that this is the end of this. If not, parties are welcome to return to ANI with new evidence at a later date. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

drmargi has a serious issue with WP:NPA and insults. It all started when with a currently closed ANI report made by User:Unframboise. Like any user, some would add input on the situation, and I did. Although, this user's behavior is far from appropriate and tolerant. On their talk page, they insulted the user Unframboise for being from the UK and has no acknowledgement on American entertainment here here. I brought this issue up on my comment from the ANI report, citing that it does not matter where you're from to edit on Wikipedia for whatever. I even asked them that I am from Canada, does this apply to me as well? I thoroughly explained that the user followed every guideline from WP:SOURCES and WP:Verify. I told them that you don't need to be American to participate on American-based articles from media to people to law and so on. However, they have continued to insult the users involved in the report and/or the discussion of the talk page from the ANI report. This is their message. They called the users petulant, adolescents, and accused me of making the ANI report about myself. This threw me off guard as I did not think a person with over 25k edits would violate WP:NPA. I became offended, since their personal attacks were getting out of hand. I warned them on their talk page per WP:NPA. I explained that their insults were unnecessary and uncivil. I again told them that it does not matter what your age is, the number of edits you have, the years of experience, your current status on Wikipedia or where you're from to edit on Wikipedia. I recommended them to learn to calm down when users are complaining about them. One is more than capable to say otherwise other than insults. I gave them one warning before I reported. However, they removed the warning and insulted me once again per their edit summary: "How infantile can you be? A bit of Extra-Strength "Teen Spirit" Troll Be Gone handles those without the maturity to know what they're talking about." by calling me infantile and so on. Then after noticing them of the ANI report, they claimed it as childish here. This behavior is seriously unacceptable, especially when handling ANI reports. This user clearly shows signs of not being able to be calm and handle reports properly. I am at a loss on what to do after trying to reason with them and show them that insulting users is not the right path, but they have continued to do so. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I concur with Callmemirela's assessment of Drmargi's personal attacks and insults. Even after a cool down period, her comments to and about other editors seem to be getting worse rather than better. Frankly, I would expect better behavior from someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for more than 8 years and advertises on their user page as having a doctorate in psychology. They've been reminded very recently that making such cutting remarks in talk pages and in edit summaries rather than discussing civilly on talk pages is preferable [25]. As the report above documents, they have not heeded that advice. I have no desire to see Drmargi blocked or sanctioned, but I would like to see her be nicer to editors. Curt and cold is one thing. She's just rude and mean spirited way too frequently, in my opinion. -- WV 03:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any real evidence here. I looked at the Drmargi and I'm not seeing him insult anyone for being from the UK.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's no exactly an insult, but rather what comes after that. Drmargi used the argument that Umfranboise is from the UK to claim they have no acknowledgement of American entertainment here. Is there a rule against English editors to edit on American articles? No. Callmemirela (Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen any evidence of Drmargi insulting me, so I don't understand the claim that she has. From what I can gather, this is an ongoing issue arising from the attempts by some editors to change content at CSI: Cyber based on some pretty weak sources. Drmargi has asked repeatedly for other editors to let the issue go (it was supposedly resolved) but it just continues. --AussieLegend () 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Here: "But you can't discuss when three petulant adolescents are throwing insults at one another, two of whom are unwilling to abide by a litany of editing, civility and discussion practices, and the third of whom is just in it to win at any cost. (Leaving aside the fourth adolescent who decided to make it all about her on ANI.)" You were apart of the discussion and there were four users (including myself) adding input on the report... Looking back, I suppose this is about the article and not the ANI report? Nonetheless, it still contains insults. I would have known if this was for the ANI report or the article if the user would just compromise instead of calling me infantile, claiming that I don't know what I am talking about and whatnot. Callmemirela (Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't participate in the discussion at Talk:CSI: Cyber. My only contribution to the page was adding {{reflist talk}} to fix the position of some references.[26] My contributions at the ANI discussions were almost as minimal,[27][28] so I doubt it was me that was being referred to. --AussieLegend () 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I meant the discussion on the ANI report about Drmargi made by Unframboise, not the discussion on the talk page. Regardless, I don't know who the insults were directed at, but it had targets. I'll remove that section of my report, but I stand on the insults. Callmemirela (Talk) 14:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, Callmemirela, you misunderstand the UK statement. They are indicating that the Editor they are talking about knows nothing about American Entertainment. The Possible reason for this lack of knowledge is because the person is from the UK. They aren't suggesting that English folks can't edit an American article. Your English language comprehension seems to be a little lacking. You are picking up on things that aren't there. The other comments don't seem to be actionable either. I would recommend that you drop this. There is no exemption for reporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The UK comment is rather offensive. It doesn't matter where you're from to edit on Wikipedia. Just because you're from the UK it doesn't mean you shouldn't edit on American articles or you don't know anything about American entertainment and so on. I'm from Canada, does it apply to me as well? That's what pisses me off with that comment. Quite frankly, I am not dropping this because Drmargi is rather rude and uncivil with people. Calling people adolescents, petulants, selfish, childish? There are more ways to communicate with people rather than using insults. If anyone is capable to communicate properly, so could have Drmargi. This is why I brought it here. I could only imagine their insults getting worse or never stops as the years go on (personal opinion). Drmargi could have easily set the situation straight and told me otherwise. The user refused and insulted me. Again, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, is not a "weak" source. Beyond that, I agree that other editors should let this go, and disengage for a while. If any patterns of behavior continue, they are free to return to ANI with the evidence at a later date. --IJBall (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Callmemirela, after looking through the editors last 50 edits everyone of them are basically made to "pick fights" with others users. --BabbaQ (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I find User:Drmargi's statement about adolescent extremely offensive and think that Wikipedia is no place for such comments. Whatismore, she has previously threatened me on my talk page that I will get a warning if I continue to act like I do, so shouldn't this be a two-way street? Shouldn't she be forced to follow the same rules and be sanctioned in the same way when she fails to? The worst thing is, that she is obviously aware of her inappropriate behaviour, since she keeps pointing users to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Is she allowed to say/do whatever she wants just because she is a Senior Editor?
And personally, I find the connection between a country of residence (UK) and "country of the article" (USA) offensive, too. Sources we were all citing are Internet sources, available worldwide to everyone, why should someone who is physically closer to the source have more knowledge about its reliability? I mean, is it more qualified to judge Hollywood Reporter someone from Tijuana (because he's closer) or someone from New York (because he's in the same country)? Irrelevant if you ask me...
Also, about her involvement in discussions about articles' edits. She tends to revert changes and point the users to the Talk page, where she states she does not agree with the edit and the disappears, with that she fails to comply with WP:BRD and with WP:CON and ultimately, she is taking advantage of WP:STATUSQUO because the article can't be edited until consensus has been achieved, and it can't be achieved if one side of the discussions is not even involved in it. Maticsg1 (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been reverted multiple times at, for example, Prince George of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, and has received multiple messages from editors bringing attention to the need for sources, edit summaries and communication. Regardless, the same information has once again been added to both articles[29][30] without an edit summary or any post on either the article talk page or the IP's talk page. Unsourced information,[31] which is in fact wrong,[32] is also being added to other articles. This is disruptive, and I would like to ask for this IP to be blocked. DrKiernan (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear why this is a problem, there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here, as George and Charlotte are not the first great-grandchildren of the Queen, the first great-grandchildren are the children of Peter Phillips. It's an easy enough error to make, but one should listen when it's pointed out rather than doggedly continuing on the same course. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
Comment I see plenty of warnings placed on the IPs talk page but do not see evidence of any attempt being made to educate or correct the user. I would not support an indefinite ban/block in a case that I am uncertain whether the editor concerned has been made aware of the extent of the problem. The IP has done ~250 royal related edits. I'm not sure of the proportion of the edits are problematic. GregKaye 15:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what is being suggested as a remedy here? The editor continues to add erroneous, trivial, redundant or inappropriate information to articles on royalty despite being reverted and having it repeatedly explained what the objections are, mainly in the edit summaries but also on the talk page. Since no response is ever provided, on edit summaries or talk pages, what are we supposed to do to stop the disruptions, which require others to check and correct repeatedly and on an ongoing basis? FactStraight (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. This editor has never left a post on a talk page of any kind, and has never responded to any of the concerns expressed on their own talk. We can't afford to delegate experienced content people to follow this person around to see if they are inserting nonsense to articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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.[33] 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.[34]

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)

Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?[edit]

Ronn Torossian is both a notable PR person and an Wikipedia editor with a long history of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry that saw them banned from Wikipedia. That obviously didn't stop them from editing Wikipedia. Now I can to some degree understand that Mr. Torossian is unhappy with our article about him, though it's well-sourced and legal threats are not acceptable. However, his latest spate of sockpuppets or meatpuppets also engaged in a smear campaign against Torossian's personal and professional opponents, including various competitors of his company 5W PR and the New Israel Fund, an organization Torossian criticized over their politics at that time. In fact, here is the Torossian sock (or meatpuppet) citing a Torossian-written opinion piece to add negative content to a direct competitor. And for good measure, an utterly deceptive edit summary by that same sock. Another sock edited an article on a 5W PR client without disclosing their affiliation, in violation of the terms of use. For quite some time I have tolerated Torossian's sockpuppetry since there were some genuine BLP concerns in his article. However, his criticism of that article doesn't stop there, and his company seems to routinely engage in abuse of Wikipedia for unethical purposes, in violation of both our content policies and the Terms of Use. As I said Torossian himself is banned already. I hereby propose extending that ban to all of 5W Public Relations and its employees, along the lines of Wiki-PR. That would include User:Judae1 who serves as the "good hand" account while his co-workers engage in meatpuppetry and deception; at the very least he should be topic-banned from anything related to Torossian, 5W PR and its clients, widely construed. I see no reason to tolerate 5W PR abusing Wikipedia any more than we did Wiki-PR. Huon (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

and no the bio is not well sourced. Deal with that. There is a press release, a gossip blog and a random website now used as sources and no one cares to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support extending ban to all who identify as editing on behalf of the company. I also support a widely construed topic ban from anything that could benefit from, be harmed by or be the subject of any public relations, including any living or recently deceased people, organizations and products, that applies to all 5W PR employees, enforceable by an indefinite block from any administrator. Wikipedia is not a place meant to be used by PR companies to further their interests. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This is Ronn Torossian I am being slammed unfairly on my page so how does one deal with blatant untruths. Judae1 identified himself as best I understand. Rather unclear how you people propose to have edits handled if you refuse to acknowledge a living person being attacked without sources and links - as is now done on the page. I am commenting on the talk page which is what I am supposed to do as I understand and for that you want to ban me. IS this North Korea? Ronn Torossian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
PhantomTech, that is an incredibly broad brush, requiring admins to know everyone who might be an employee of this company (how exactly?) as well as their usernames and also anticipate any people, organization or product that could be the subject of an edit by these editors/IPs. I don't disagree with the intent of the ban, it just seems, pragmatically, unworkable and unenforceable except in the most egregious and obvious instances. Liz Read! Talk! 10:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I don't think it would be much more difficult than the proposed ban of all employees, but I agree that either would be difficult to enforce fully, an editor who is here with good faith could probably slip through without much difficulty but I don't think we should prevent those types of editors from editing because of the actions of their employer. As to determining which people, organizations or products could be the subject of edits by these editors, the easiest thing, though maybe not the best thing, to do would be to consider all living or recently deceased people, organizations and products as covered by the topic ban only leaving subjects open that unambiguously could not be the subject of PR, like space. Though, looking back at the responses, it does seem that one editor in particular may be unfairly affected by any sort of company wide restrictions, that, combined with your concerns, is making me doubt that my suggestion is the best solution. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not seeing any evidence to the claim of sockpuppetry for Albertoein526. SPA perhaps, but an ill-advised orphan tag removal doesn't prove or suggest sockpuppetry, nor have you presented evidence showing that Albertoein526 works for 5W PR. Or am I missing something?It's at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. I'm also not seeing any evidence presented for any wrongdoing by Judae1, who has been open about his CoI on his user page since 2006. While I did not have time to examine his edits more thoroughly, xtools report does not seem to show many edits to articles where he has a conflict of interest. 5W_Public_Relations is on the list of most edited articles, but all the ones I checked were non-controversial maintenance (e.g. updating logo, updating numbers, repairing links, non-controversial minor grammar fixes). Can you please provide examples where Judae1 has edited in bad faith? ― Padenton|   23:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Nvm on Albertoein, found it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. Not seeing bad faith edits by Judae1 though still. Editing from same IP perhaps, but the editing behavior doesn't seem at all the same from what I looked at. ― Padenton|   00:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It would also be helpful if someone could look at these BLP concerns. While "Ronn Torossian"'s concerns may not have been helped by the attitude with which he brought them up, they do seem to have some merit. For starters, I am not sure that a gawker writer is a reliable source for negative opinions of BLPs (as being used here Ronn_Torossian#Reception) and the inclusion of some criticisms in the Ronn_Torossian#Politics section bothers me, especially since the largest paragraph by far is entirely about his days as an undergraduate. At some point I wonder whether the goal here is to provide encyclopedic coverage of!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> him or to find any criticism we can that has a reliable source. Then it says "his politics created controversy for one of his clients, Birthright Israel, when it selected 5W to represent it". Looking at the source, the entirety of said "controversy" appears to be some activist and 'journalist' "started an online petition" and a rabbi who "posted a long item on his blog". ― Padenton|   00:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I own a $20MM company and employ 120 people. These 20 year old stories are half truths. I never burnt a flag like they say - and of course there is no source for it, yet it remains.
Further, I won PR professional of the year and am in TV and newspaper every day for non Israel related matters. Why does things from 1995 define me? Its not why I am noteable - and there's no sources. Its simply meant to harm me 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I've mentioned this in the article talk page, but Gawker's reliability is misrepresented here. There was a time when it was a gossip blog, but by the time Hamilton Nolan (author of the piece) joined, its editorial approach had changed to be more like an actual news organization with its own reporting and editorial policies. Nolan specifically is someone who covered the PR industry before Gawker, so his opinions on PR executives are more informed than Mr. Torossian would have you believe. On the politics section, I don't know enough to comment either way. Mosmof (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In 2007 when Gawker wrote that it was very much a small organization as any number of sources would advise. Its a salicious blog gossip and surely unworthy of a entrée in a BLP. Further, there's numerous unsourced comments that should be removed entirerly. One wonders why the largest section in my biography (I AM 40 years old) is from when I was 20. COme on folks. Its not what I am noteable for. RONN TOROSSIAN (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As said above " I am not sure that a gawker writer is a reliable source for negative opinions of BLPs (as being used here Ronn_Torossian#Reception) and the inclusion of some criticisms in the Ronn_Torossian#Politics section bothers me, especially since the largest paragraph by far is entirely about his days as an undergraduate. At some point I wonder whether the goal here is to provide encyclopedic coverage of him or to find any criticism we can that has a reliable source. Then it says "his politics created controversy for one of his clients, Birthright Israel, when it selected 5W to represent it". Looking at the source, the entirety of said "controversy" appears to be some activist and 'journalist' "started an online petition" and a rabbi who "posted a long item on his blog"."

PLEASE HELP AND HANDLE THAT ISSUE !!! Ronn Torossian (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: It doesn't really matter how 'informed' Hamilton Nolan is on PR executives. Having covered the PR field before does not mean he is an objective expert on the people in that field. And I don't know how old you think Gawker is, Gawker has always been tabloid journalism, up to and including recent years, so certainly during the period this article was written, early 2008. I have no idea what reform you think it went through between its creation in 2003 and early 2008. The very premise of Gawker has always been 'gossip blog', hence it comes in conflict with WP:NOTGOSSIP. ― Padenton|   04:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Gawker is still in some ways a gossip blog, but it's diversified beyond simply being a gossip site that you have to take each article for what it is - Nolan's cultural critique pieces are nothing like the early Sicha/Spires/Coen posts that simply snarked on New York media figures.
Plus, the direct source of that quote is actually Adweek, which I think is a reliable source for reporting on people in the communications industries. Mosmof (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Judae1, I at a glance didn't see much of an issue with his edits either. Since deception and disruption seem his company's default means of operation on Wikipedia, and this isn't the fist time they're caught at misrepresenting their opponents online, I thought a topic ban might suffice to keep the problems afflicting his co-workers from spilling over to Engelmayer's Wikipedia career. At a closer look, however, he's routinely violating the Terms of Use by editing articles on a 5WPR's clients without disclosing that connection, say here (see above for "client" status), here (evidence for "client" status, and that was a blatantly promotional edit, too) and here (Peebles' company is mentioned as a 5WPR client here, and by now I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the editor who edited that article immediately before Judae1, a single-purpose account, also was a 5WPR sock). Thus I see no reason to exclude Engelmayer from a ban on that company. We don't really need editors where whe have to wonder with every edit whether they're adding content in good faith or are promoting a client.
Regarding Torossian's latest claims of "no sources", that's blatantly untrue unless one thinks that paper doesn't exist. The press release he considers unreliable and complains about is, ironically, his own. I'll gladly discusss BLP issues at the article talk page, and I dare say that talk page history will show that I was quite accomodating of Torossian's point of view in the past, so much so that other editors accused me of being in league with him (and in fact he did ask me to email him, which I declined). Huon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)\
It is not blatantly untrue that you cant use press releases. Nor that Gawker is a blog, nor that I never burnt a flag. I own a $20MM company and you are talking about things 20 years ago and theres not even a link - NO SOURCE - for multiple comments you are claiming. Its scandalous and liberlous. Its lies. THERE IS NO SOURCE TO SAY I BURNT A FLAG. DO YOU EVEN CHECK THESE ABSURD CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING. THERE IS NO LINK NONE ZERO> ITS A LIE.

Please someone review it besides these obsessed editors. Ronn Torossian03:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Link #1: I don't really care about any off-wiki activity, nor do I see how their alleged unrelated behavior off-wiki should result in sanctions on-wiki. Also not sure what this article is saying, the only bit on Engelmayer is that an intern under his supervision had left internet comments under the names of other people (specifically including opponents). Not him.
Link #2: I'm not sure what the problem is with this one. From what I can see, it actually fixes promotional tone issues in the article.
Link #3 and 4: This edit may be an issue. I'll give you this one.
Link #5: Edit only splits refs into two columns and removes Template:BLP sources tag. Article at this revision has many sources, especially compared to what it looked like in December 2010 when the tag was added: Dec. 2010 rev.. Article has since added New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal,, and many other sources.
Perhaps the Zeta Interactive edit is enough for a topic ban, I don't know. I would dispute the others being used as reasoning however. ― Padenton|   04:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Support, and Suggest: On the one hand, I think Huon's proposal goes too far; on the other hand, I think it does not go far enough.
Regarding User:Judae1, he has proven himself consistently to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. He has adopted a strict hands-off policy regarding the article on Torossian. His edits to articles about 5W clients, while a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, have never been blatantly promotional, but generally editorial.
So, in his case, I think that a censure or ban is uncalled for. This discussion should certainly have alerted him to the issue, and I believe that he will henceforth restrict his editing of 5W-related articles to the talk page, rather than the article itself.
As for Torossian, in his recent posts to the talk page of his article and his posts here, he has clearly identified himself with the community-banned Babasalichai. His illiterate puling makes intelligent discussion of the article content almost impossible. As someone who is community-banned, his posts should not be permitted. They should all be deleted immediately.
Finally, I want to second the opinion expressed by Padenton and repeat an apology that I made previously to Huon. When Huon started editing Torossian's article, he deleted everything related to Torossian's politics, and in general edited in a way that suggested to me that he was somehow influenced by Torossian himself. I was wrong, and recent edits to the article show that I was wrong with a vengeance: all the material on Torossian's political activities has been restored, and expanded on. So much so that I think the section on politics is excessive and unbalanced, and should be trimmed. Of course, it is almost impossible to discuss this in a rational way on the talk page as long as the Babasalichai sock (who now calls himself Torossian) keeps up his ranting. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Ravpapa as he calls himself is openly opposed to my politics. I am posting in my name and this Dungeons and Dragons style of childish games about my life is unacceptable. The simple fact remains that I am correcting what I am asserting happened in my life and its not being addressed. I never burned a flag ever - and there's not a source that says I did. Theres endless information on that page which has no sources and that should and must be addressed. And the simple fact remains that this has been discussed ad naseum on my page - and anyone not involved in politics will agree that posting endless 20 year old information from when I was 20 years old is overkill. Unfortunately if this matter isn't fixed there will have to be immediate outside action.

Wikipedia rules say remove libelous and inaccurate info immediately - which would include flag burning - and there's no source yet its not removed. One may be in their best interest to realize that. Please fix the page and reflect sources. There's not accurate ones now. 09:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk)

Support company block At the help desk, said they are Ronn Torossian- therefore it's clear block evasion. The only way to stop this sock/meat puppetry is to stop all the possible meatpuppets from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I did say who I am. What is it that was edited by me. This is my real life. While for you its dungeons and dragons. I ask that someone simply review the material. I haven't edited anything and have said who I am when commenting. Ronn Torossian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, no one disputes that I own one of the 20 largest PR firms in the US, with 120 employees and $20MM in revenue. Could not I assign someone on staff to do these things? Realize there is a real world off Wikipedia. No one is addressing the simple fact that there is stuff posted which is not reflective of truth. My bio focuses on things 20 years ago. Would I be on Wikipedia bio if I didn't own a PR agency? Gimme a break. Review my competitors they all have pages that focuses on what they do. (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, the sockpuppet's claim that "no one disputes that I own one of the 20 largest PR firms in the US..." is not completely accurate. The Holmes report ranks 5WPR as 93rd in the world, and 51st in the United States. So at least one pretty reputable source disputes it.
Support company topic ban Particularly, I don't support banning them for Wikipedia entirely, I just support topic banning them from articles related to the ones Ronn Torossian has been editing. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support company topic ban It is surprising that a company would do this to themselves but their behavior leaves little option. Chillum 14:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support broad scope of ban, both subjects and editors. Rampant sock puppetry, blatant propaganda, legal posturing - everything Wikipedia does not need. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support company topic ban. If the org in question was willing to go through our guidelines and ethos then follow them – this debate would not be necessary. After going through the posts & edits (during which time, I could have been doing something more useful) I think a company topic ban is more than justified.--Aspro (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure where to post, but @Padenton: Torossian's political activism is not limited to his college days - if you see this talk page section, much of whose content hasn't made it to the article, Torossian's political activities attracted media attention till 2002. He graduated from SUNY Albany in 1995. In any case, if he was written about in reliable sources during his youth, it belongs here - sources don't become obsolete or unacceptable because they are 20 years old or offline, especially since what he has done afterwards hasn't attracted that much media attention. And I don't agree with his claim that he is only notable for owning a PR company, there are at least 30+ sources about his politics, and far fewer about his PR stuff. Many of these sources about his activism are English-language sources based in Israel, I can only imagine there will be many more Hebrew (and possibly Arabic) sources. Apart from a few profiles (NYT, Forward, Lifestyles Magazine) which also prominently mention his politics, the rest PR-related sources that come up are all about him being in the news because he is representing notable clients - from whom he doesn't inherit any notability. Those sources say nothing about Torossian the person - his views, beliefs, ideology, etc. - except that his PR firm represented those clients, and that he acted as spokesman for those clients. Also, his claim about his company being amongst the top 25 PR firms is false, Wikipedia (inadvertently?) [ edits (during which time, I could have been doing something more useful) I think a company topic ban is more than justified.--Aspro (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure where to post, but @Padenton: Torossian's political activism is not limited to his college days - if you see this talk page section, much of whose content hasn't made it to the article, Torossian's political activities attracted media attention till 2002. He graduated from SUNY Albany in 1995. In any case, if he was written about in reliable sources during his youth, it belongs here - sources don't become obsolete or unacceptable because they are 20 years old or offline, especially since what he has done afterwards hasn't attracted that much media attention. And I don't agree with his claim that he is only notable for owning a PR company, there are at least 30+ sources about his politics, and far fewer about his PR stuff. Many of these sources about his activism are English-language sources based in Israel, I can only imagine there will be many more Hebrew (and possibly Arabic) sources. Apart from a few profiles (NYT, Forward, Lifestyles Magazine) which also prominently mention his politics, the rest PR-related sources that come up are all about him being in the news because he is representing notable clients - from whom he doesn't inherit any notability. Those sources say nothing about Torossian the person - his views, beliefs, ideology, etc. - except that his PR firm represented those clients, and that he acted as spokesman for those clients. Also, his claim about his company being amongst the top 25 PR firms is false, Wikipedia (inadvertently?) abetted him in propagating this lie for years till it was removed. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@FireflySixtySeven: my point is that it's largely WP:UNDUE. We could have similar extensive negative sections on a very wide number of people, yet we do not, because in many of those cases, editors felt it was WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure that it's Wikipedia's purpose to be a log of every media covered controversial decision a person has made in their entire lives. How long would the articles for Barack Obama, George W. Bush (more likely to be covered in his youth due to his father), Bill Clinton (very active in politics in college), if we listed every little thing they had done? I'm not saying Ronn Torossian has had the impact of a president of the United States, quite the opposite. The majority of his article is critical of him, and while I don't agree with how "Torossian" has been handling the dispute (from the recent posts that I've seen), his anger and impatience in this do appear to have some merit.
If these negative stories (many used in our article, though not all the sources in the politics section, are opinion articles) make up the majority of the few sources about this person, then I wonder if he truly has received significant coverage, and this becomes more of an attack page. Again, I don't agree with "Torossian"'s handling of this, but I just entered this dispute which seems to have been going on for a while. And based on my understanding of WP:BLP, some of this stuff is a bit excessive. WP:RS is not the only content guideline. WP:BLP is also a content guideline, and arguably far more important than WP:RS. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE also applies. ― Padenton|   17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever else, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply to someone who is known for putting himself in the spotlight (and I can present reliable sources for that, if required). It's not as if he weren't busily publishing opinion pieces to clearly lay out his political positions, though he doesn't want his own writings mentioned in his article (and he's right there, for once; I have repeatedly removed content based on his opinion pieces or on author profiles). Huon (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: At the risk of being picky and legalistic (and repetitive, even!), I wish to point out that a topic ban would not apply to the numerous sockpuppets of Babasalichai who swarm about 5WPR-related articles like flies. Those sockpuppets are community banned - their edits should be immediately reverted and their accounts should be blocked.
We are only talking about legitimate editors who have an association with 5W, and I know of only one of those - account Judae1. And, as I noted above, I think that Judah (whom I don't know personally and with whom I have no association other than having edited articles with him at Wikipedia) can be trusted to abide by the conflict of interest rules.
This in no way mitigates the pressing need to enforce the community ban on Babasalichai and his sockpuppets, including the IP that identifies himself as Ronn Torossian. All of these edits need to be reverted, and the IPs blocked from future editing of Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: should Cada mori (talk · contribs) be included in the company ban? Based on the writing style, I believe the user is not Ronn Torossian, but the user's input in Talk:Ronn Torossian basically parrots the 5W talking points and seems intended to add the impression that there's a dialog. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Question, how sure are we that these accounts really are Torossian and his employees, and not just impostors? Lankiveil (speak to me) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC).
How sure do we need to be? What we do know is that there is a group of accounts (whether it's one person or multiple people) who have spent the past several years trying (justified or not) to remove negative content about the CEO and the company while inflating the company's standing and influence in its category (while also making similar edits to articles about the company's clients and introducing negative content to pages like Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. We know these accounts are disruptive, hijack discussions and unwilling to follow community policies. What more do we need to know? (FWIW, I believe some early edits have come from within the company and they're linked to blocked accounts, but I could be wrong) 15:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You're on a witch hunt. I have no association with Ronn or his PR company. I came across the discussion and decided to participate. You have no reason to believe I am a sock, especially considering that I have a long history of edits on this site. Cada mori (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"You have no reason to believe I am a sock, especially considering that I have a long history of edits on this site". Ahem.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So? The block was reverted and it was confirmed it was only one instance. I have a solid history of contributions prior to that and the validity of the opinions expressed on the talk page should not be affected by that one incident. Cada mori (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Action, but not crackdown It would be impossible to fully find out every single member of this Company by really searching them out, instead, a system of surveillance on all articles related should be set up and anything suspicious should be looked into, If we find someone is putting pro Torossian accounts, we can assume that they are a employee using WP:DUCK. This should not be a crackdown, just a case of keeping a lookout. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]


(non-admin closure) IP was blocked by User:Chillum. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please see this link. Please block that IP. I am reporting this to WMF legal. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

this is related to issues discussed above here. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP. In the spirit of WP:DOLT this complaint should be looked into. It is not clear what issue the IP was complaining about can you please clarify that? Chillum 14:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we could merge this with the Ronn Torossian thread above. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Ban evasion at Help Desk[edit]

NAC: Already blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

See this diff at the Help Desk:

This appears to be ban evasion. Please block or perform a range-block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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)
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 ([35]) 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 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.[36], [37], [38], [39] [40] [41][42] [43] [44][45] [46] 2. [47], [48] [49], [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Of POV Pushing: [55], [56], [57] [58] [59],[60] [61] [62] [63] [64], [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72], [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78][79] [80] [81] [82] Attacking other editors on talk pages: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]. 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.[89]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: [90], [91], [92], [93].--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: [94], [95], [96], [97]. 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 ([98], [99], [100], [101], [102]),and Ellen ([103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113],[114], [115], [116], [117], [118]; 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" ([119]). 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 ([120], scroll down). In your next reply you attacked my motives ([121]), 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.[122], [123], [124], [125] [126] [127][128] [129] [130][131] [132] 2. [133], [134] [135], [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] POV Pushed: [141], [142], [143] [144] [145],[146] [147] [148] [149] [150], [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158], [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164][165] [166] [167] [168] and attacked other editors: [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]

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: [175], [176], [177], [178] He often attacks others editors on the talk page of the article. [179] [180] [181]

Victor edits primary on topics that relate to the Politics of the United States and has made his purpose for editing those articles clear. [182] 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...[183]...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 (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. [184] 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: [185]), 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: [186] "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." [187] "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)
  • 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)

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 [188], 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)

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: [189]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)

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)


  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 [190], 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 [191] [192] 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) [193];
  • 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)
  • Support - There have been many complaints and ANI threads about MiddayExpress in this topic area and a topic ban is years overdue.[194]-- 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: [195] [196] [197] [198] &c. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Shagadelicbasil23 and null edits again[edit]


Shagadelicbasil23 blocked indefinitely by Floquenbeam for not responding to questions on their talk page (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There was a previous discussion about User:Shagadelicbasil23 for many repitions of bad edits, especially making numerous, pointless null edits- discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#User:Shagadelicbasil23 This discussion culminated in an admin warning here from @Philg88:.

Despite this admin warning, and a final warning from myself for making null edits here after null edit here, they are continuing to make null edits, and other unhelpful edits, and have made no contact with any users about these actions.

Null edit: [199] Not obeying protocol of alphabetical order: [200]

I think there's a few more diffs as well, will add them if I find them. The problem is that lots of their edits are unhelpful, the null edits are annoying, and they frequently go against well-established principles (for example WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTNEWS, listing umpires alphabetically, listing best bowler as the one who's conceded fewest runs, not best economy rate). They're just not co-operative with anyone, I've only once ever received a message from them, and never a reply to any complaints posted on their talkpage.

@PeeJay2K3: @Lugnuts: @Philg88: Because you were all involved in last discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was happening on another article since the last warning. Another null edit and adding unsourced content. The latter was only verified today. Very unhelpful edits all round. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me start by saying I'm always grateful when people want to help out with updating cricket articles on Wikipedia. God knows there aren't enough cricket fans any more. However, when editors such as Shagadelicbasil23 come along and treat Wikipedia as their own pet project with no regard for collaboration, that's a problem. He keeps making null edits and I can't explain why; my best guess would be that he just likes having his name at the top of the edit history. There's no place for that kind of behaviour here and either Shagadelicbasil23 needs to sort himself out or he needs to go away. – PeeJay 13:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Peejay, lots of his edits are good, but there's also far too many that aren't, and show they're ignoring editors by making the same errors. As for the null edits, they've been asked about them multiple times- initially I thought it could be something like they make phone posts and so it happens accidentally. But combined with them not giving explanation, and other non-collaborative behaviour I think they might just like themselves at the top of the edit history. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Another pointless edit, this time made after this thread was started. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
They've not bothered to come here and defend themselves, yet continue to edit, and used the "thank" function to thank me for the edit where I gave the, the ANI notification. Their editing just super confuses me sometimes. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked until they start responding on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Jagged 85 evading ban[edit]

(non-admin closure) This complaint was moved to WP:SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Banned editor Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is apparently active again using various IPs. (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and possibly others have been making a large number of problematic edits to Electric blues, Blues rock, Origins of rock and roll, and related artist and song articles. They add original research, synthesis, copyvio or closely paraphrased material, etc. in an attempt to push barely sustainable minority or fringe views. Their edits are not supported by RS, which often include only a bare url link to a book or blog. In many cases, these IP edits are identical or similar to those by Jagged 85 from 5 to 6 July 2012[201], such as Origins of rock and roll, Electric blues, Willie Johnson, Moanin' in the Moonlight (Howlin' Wolf album), etc. They also follow Jagged 85's past patterns of introducing large amounts of misinformation to Muslim and computer game articles (see User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources discussion at ANI[202]). A range block or other measures may be necessary to prevent ban evasion. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If this guy is screwing around with Moanin' in the Moonlight he needs to be stopped now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If you feel this user is evading a ban using sockpuppets, you should file a sockpuppet investigation following the instructions here. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
User is not using multiple Wikipedia accounts and evading the ban would seem the main concern. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@SilverSurfingSerpent: WP:SPI generally can't confirm IP addresses to usernames for privacy reasons. ― Padenton|   21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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


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 [203]. 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 [204].

Now he’s attempting to dig for information about me off wiki as well [205].

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 [206] 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 [[207]]. 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: [208]
WeldNeck deletes an entire section by Cjhanley: [209]
Cjhanley attacks WeldNeck multiple times: [210]
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:[211][212][213]
Another implicit attack on Cjhanley: [214]
My (2015) comment that reignited the whole thing in the first place: [215]

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)
  • 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, [216], 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)

User:Roscelese and User:Stalwart111 working together[edit]

Queen Christina of Sweden (one of 6 so named, the only one who was head of state in her own right) and her sexuality have been a subject of controversy since the 17th century. Scolarly and unbiased writers have portrayed her as undefinable, asexual, bisexual or just a complete mystery in that regard. To my knowledge, there is no reliable and neutral source anywhere, i.e. one without a literary (book-selling) agenda, which attempts to stamp her life story with any specific sexual preference.

These 2 editors on English Wikipedia want us to call Christina a probable lesbian by using this top sentence under Gender ambiguity in our biography of the queen: "She is thought to have been a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime." The problems are, (1) as an Rfc on the talk page concludes, which has been disregarded by these two editors, that only one source for the first part of the sentence ("She is thought to have been a lesbian") is not enough for us to display a generalization of that kind in our article text; and (2) that the second part of the sentence ("her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime") still is completely unsourced, tendentiously turning seems to and suggested (by a totally unknown 17th century person named "Guilliet" - ? - ), into "were noted".

One of Queen Christina's most knowledgeable and reliable academic biographers Sven Stolpe has clearly concluded that there is no basis to assert that she was or probably was a lesbian. Mentioning the accusations of homosexuality leveled against Christina by infamous liars, in writings such as "Princess Lucien Marat's scandalous and tacky La vie amoureuse de Christine de Suède, le reine androgyne", Stolpe reminds us of the risk that gossip intended to ruin a person's reputation in the 17th century can be imaginatively reversed and embraced in attempts to make a life story more interesting today, with spices no longer derogatory but rather trendily appealing and exciting to a vast majority of readers in 2015.

I have fought a losing battle so far in trying to balance the article on this detail. My latest effort, after a long break, was reversed within 7 minutes with the edit summary "drop it, dude", by one of these editors, and the talk page is a trail of tears and anxiety for me with a seemingly never ending sequence of personal slurs by the other one.

Please help me try to figure out if I'm wrong here, or what else besides WP:OWN might be going on, month after month. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Serge, ultimately, this is a content dispute, which means it's not actionable at ANI. I'd recommend WP:DR or WP:3O for an issue like this. --IJBall (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not within the scope of WP:3O because it involves more than two editors. The dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments are reasonable options. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the best way to handle this is as JzG (closer of first RFC) later suggested in Talk:Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden#Re:_RFC_result, and start a new RfC with a clearer question and clearer options. I disagree with the removal of Template:Cn, as WP:Verifiability requires "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The source being used so far is a textbook, a WP:TERTIARY source, and therefore far from ideal. The source does not seem to support the "and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime" claim, in the pages provided in the preview. On the contrary, it provides one person's speculation on the topic, and immediately expresses doubt on the claim. "Was Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors that view." Not at all a ringing endorsement of the preceding claim. Consensus here referring to majority opinion, not fact. If somehow we can view other pages of this book, or if someone has access to it, that would be nice. ― Padenton|   21:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The claim that the cited source is a textbook isn't true; moreover, it isn't true that the source doesn't support the statement about her affairs with women being known at the time. This is a silly comment, Padenton. Serge's complaint appears to be that multiple people daring to disagree with him is evidence of some kind of conspiracy, and you shouldn't be wasting your time trying to lend it legitimacy. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's all I'm asking. Nothing more, nothing less. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Whether you want to call it a 'textbook' or not is splitting hairs. The point was that it's an obviously WP:TERTIARY source. "moreover, it isn't true [...]" Show me exactly where the source supports the statement about "her affairs with women being known at the time" as you claim, as I've read it twice now. ― Padenton|   21:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Crompton attributes her breaking off her engagement with her cousin to "the attachment she formed with a young woman named Ebba Sparre", the quote about Christina calling Sparre her "bedfellow" and saying her mind was "as beautiful as her outside" is here, the Danish envoy writes that she had "hidden the beautiful Ebba Sparre in her bed and associated with her in a special way," a few more quotes from Christina's contemporaries. I don't believe you've "read it twice now". Again, I would recommend that you stop enabling this disruptive user. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As I'm sure you already known, it was quite common for women in past centuries to have intimate relationships with other women, even living together, without it being a sexual or romantic relationship. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that your personal analysis of the primary sources trumps Louis Crompton's? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If you had actually read the pages, you'd see that Louis Crompton says everything that Liz just said. "The Englishman was not shocked—royalty in this age often had same-sex bedmates." Bottom of page 358. The paragraph right after the sentence fragment you pasted above in fact: "The most likely explanation lies in the attachment she formed with a young woman named Ebba Sparre early in 1645." ― Padenton|   15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, why do you think it's appropriate to elevate your own personal analysis of primary sources over Crompton's? He literally states that the consensus of modern biographers believes she was a lesbian and follows up with supporting details. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I never said I disagreed with Crompton. You are putting words in my mouth. Go read again what I said. This is not about the first half of the sentence, but the second. ― Padenton|   21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The second half which follows Crompton by stating that her sexuality was noted by her contemporaries. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Except Crompton never says it. ― Padenton|   14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite having claimed (several times) to the contrary, Serge has been unable to point these so-called "personal slurs" and this is, as has been pointed out, a content dispute. My only references to Serge, personally, were with regard to his well-established record of edit-warring, a disingenuous and invalid RFC and his refusal to discuss things before blindly reverting. With regard to content, the conflict has been whether Serge's chosen source (Stolpe) provides a better account than later biographers (Crompton, et al) who had access to additional evidence and didn't have an obvious agenda. In reality, it's a moot question anyway because the article gives an account of both views, heavily referencing Stolpe despite the obvious issues with regard to his reliability and neutrality as a source and referencing (despite Serge's attempts to remove them) Crompton and many others who, on balance of evidence, have formed their own view with regard to her sexuality. Stolpe was free to do so (through his rose-coloured, Catholic-convert, ultra-conservative, inexpert goggles) and we give an account of that. Whether Serge likes it or not, the consensus of modern biographers (ie. everyone other than Stolpe) is that she was something other than a heterosexual woman and that she had (at various points during a life punctuated by drama and bouts of deep religious devotion) relationships with both men and women including a Catholic Cardinal. The extent to which they were "relationships" as we would see them is irrelevant and our personal view as to whether or not she was straight, gay or otherwise is also irrelevant. We simply regurgitate what reliable sources say and that is exactly what has been done in the article. Stlwart111 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Worth pointing out, too, that the allegation here is that Roscelese and I are "working together". Yes, quite happily so, along with a number of other long-term editors who have contributed recently to the article and have contributed to various talk page discussions. The only individual refusing to participate in that collegial and collaborative effort is Serge, whose conduct has been the subject of some prior discussion here. A boomerang and some quiet time to reconsider his approach might be in order. Stlwart111 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm less involved with the article, but did jump in to revert Serge previously, which resulted in a thread about the Crompton source on my talk page. As far as the nature of this thread, there's no reason to think Roscelese and Stalwart111 are "working together" in any nefarious way. Based on the talk page threads, it seems Serge may take pointed disagreement personally. So this is ultimately a content dispute that should be addressed by a new RfC (the previous one was poorly conceived and closed as no consensus) or taken to DR (or maybe RS)? Speaking of RS, @Padenton: Why do you say it is clearly a tertiary source? The preface makes clear that the author drew on previous historical works as well as from original [ancient] sources. If it were only the former I suppose I'd understand? But then it's less likely Harvard would've published it. Also, even if it were a textbook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's tertiary or unreliable. The lower-level textbooks tend to be tertiary, but WP:RS says "Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Other textbooks are secondary and among the most reliable sources (again WP:RS "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.") — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the content but there does seem to be some misunderstanding regarding WP:TERTIARY above, as stated there, "tertiary" is not a way to say the source is "not ideal", a tertiary source is by policy often quite good for summarizing sources, as that's its purpose. Moreover, we often need and use tertiary sources for WP:RS/AC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Discussion closed until SandyGeorgia returns from hiatus to contribute. In the meantime, the contentious material has already been deleted. There's nothing else to do here until SandyGeorgia returns to contribute to the discussion. --Jayron32 03:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

In December 2013, User:Petrarchan47 and myself were involved in a dispute on medical cannabis with User:SandyGeorgia. Unbeknownst to me, SandyGeorgia began keeping a list of negative (and biased) material about the both of us in her sandbox page. Per WP:POLEMIC, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons" and "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" should be removed if not used in a timely manner. "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

Here is the full list of diffs of the disputed edits:

  • 05:18, 5 December 2013[217]
  • 15:11, 7 December 2013[218]
  • 23:50, 8 December 2013[219]
  • 03:22, 9 December 2013[220]
  • 21:35, 9 December 2013[221]
  • 02:11, 11 December 2013[222]
  • 18:40, 11 December 2013[223]
  • 01:16, 12 December 2013[224]
  • 03:32, 17 December 2013[225]
  • 03:35, 17 December 2013[226]
  • 03:36, 17 December 2013[227]

Petrarchan47 requested deletion of the material mentioning her at 03:01, 24 May 2015.[228] However, because this material is from December 2013 and it is now May 2015 and no action has been taken since that time, I have followed the guidance and recommendations given at WP:POLEMIC and blanked it from SandyGeorgia's sandbox.[229] I have brought this here for community review. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I respect Sandy I have to say this is pretty conclusive. I feel a warning would suffice in this instance, but if a block must be imposed, it shouldn't be a long one. It's unusual to have the material for so long, so perhaps an explanation should be in order as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing she just forgot about it. As long as it remains blanked (if she needs access to it, it's in the page history) I'm happy with the outcome. I don't see any need for a block. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me a lot of other things that have happened recently, I hope it is kept blanked and also hope editors know not to collect enemy lists here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Time out. Unless I am misreading something, SandyGeorgia was asked to delete this material at "03:01 on 24 May 2015." That is less than two days ago. Checking Special:Contributions/SandyGeorgia reflects that she last edited on 23 May 2015, i.e., two and one-half days ago. That is not an unreasonable time for someone to be offline, and I'm not sure why this was brought here before SandyGeorgia had a chance to see the request on her talkpage and respond to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I think it is typical in these cases to allow the editor to delete the material rather than having an involved party delete the contents of a user page. I'd have been more comfortable if an editor who wasn't involved in this dispute had taken action here if SandyGeorgia didn't respond to the request. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) SandyGeorgia has not edited since May 23, the day before the request was filed on her talk page. A block is definitely not warranted. I have mixed feelings about removing the material without her consent while she is away. If the material has been there since December 2013, why the sudden urgency to remove it? -- Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why the sudden urgency? It's been there since December 2013, it's inaccurate, it's biased, and it makes claims about editors that aren't true. I removed it per WP:POLEMIC. Is there a sudden urgency to restore it? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, I didn't recommend a block, only a warning. I think the info should stay removed. Other than that, I see no any action needed as long as this activity doesn't continue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, my question to you is why you, an involved party, deleted the content before you had heard a response from SandyGeorgia. If there was an immediate need to remove the material (and I'm not sure there was), you should have waited for a response to this complaint at AN/I or spoken to an uninvolved administrator. I'm sure why it had to be you who leaped in and deleted the material. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I cant speak for Viriditas but seeing red would be an understandable response. This content is over 2 years old though why make a fuss over it now? In my opinion the material can be restored yes but Sandy should delete it herself if that happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer to my question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a question. You said, "I'm not sure why this was brought here before SandyGeorgia had a chance to see the request on her talkpage and respond to it." That request on Sandy's talk page concerned Petrarchan47's request to have material about her removed from Sandy's sandbox. It has nothing to do with me. I brought this request here after having read the sandbox and noticed that it mentioned both myself and Petrarchan47. Furthermore, the diffs above aren't even relevant, accurate, or significant, and the edit summaries consist of personal attacks and derision. It appears the material was added by SandyGeorgia to her sandbox as an "enemy list" in December 2013 after being involved in a personal dispute with myself and Petrarchan47 and has no business being on Wikipedia after years without action. That's why I brought it here. I don't see why my actions should be tied to what Petrarchan47 is doing or what Sandy might or might not do in the future. In fact, I don't see any connection between either of those things. I'm my own person. Will Sandy remove it in the future? I have no idea. I removed it and brought my actions here for review. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Enemy list"! Looks more like she was preparing to open an RFC/u against the both of you and she forgot about it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Preparing an RFC/u based on false claims and nonexistent diffs? I think not. Good luck trying to find one, single actionable diff from that dispute. It doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sandy has recently stated in several places that she was planning to take a few weeks off and be out of touch. I can't help but wonder if the timing of this has something to do with the knowledge that she is not available to participate in the discussion. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I can see you are doing a great job at WP:AGF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This is where we discuss user behavior. We try to follow AGF, but its a legitimate issue to raise here at ANI. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, but it would help if you provide some evidence of this in the form of a diff, otherwise it is just speculative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it is largely speculation. Anyways, I don't see the issue here. The content was removed for just reasons. All that is needed is for Sandy to explain her motives, but that is about it. I don't see any other wrongdoing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'd just say that since the material has already been taken down, why not wait till she is back to hold this discussion? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Because the content was there for too long and needed to be taken down. The discussion is to confirm whether it was justly done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
At this point I would let it go, and also agree that no action should be taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can have that discussion without Sandy's participation, so Move to close this discussion. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 03:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have often thought that if editors don't want things to be said about them, then they should be careful not to do things that might attract comment.
I had an issue once where an editor had something written on a User page which was only a problem because it was in a place where it couldn't be replied to. Was that the problem?
Petrarchan47 Viriditas can you point to interactions between you and SandyGeorgia that indicate any attempt to get on with each other?
WP:Polemic presents: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)". How do you think that this applies?
To me you could easily comment that you see that a content is being developed and to mention that such content should not be presented in actual contravention of WP:POLEMIC.
I have long objected that Wikipedia supports private email which can blatantly WP:canvass or simply bitch about other editors. Its also relevant to note that Wikipedia is accessed by electronic devices that typically have their own memories. Anything that SandyG has written here could fairly easily have been written somewhere else.
If you think that an editor has taken a negative view of you then an approach to take may be to remind them of positive things you have done and non-negative involvements you have had. GregKaye 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Why is every article on AFD now listed under the category baseball?[edit]

Mellowed Fillmore blocked, unblocked and finally reblocked by Floquenbeam at the editor's request. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

What is going on here? I am seeing AFD's listed as "under the category baseball". Which none of them even have that anywhere! (I was unsure where to report this-I have checked the person that started it though who seems to be doing it to tons of articles) Wgolf (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Blocked: Given the rapid pace of edits, I have blocked the User:Mellowed Fillmore account, which is possibly compromised. Can some checkusers take a look? (And admin is free to unblock w/o consulting with me if they are convinced that the account is no longer a risk.) Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I do think that it is possible that it was hacked given how many edits there were in just 15 minutes-no way one person could of done that many that fast it seems. Something is up. Wgolf (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Could also be a failure of some automated-script they were using. In either case we can't do much unless we hear from the user, or from a checkuser. I have filed a CU request. Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note CU indicates that Mellow Fillmore is in control of their account, so this is apparently a case of them opting for an enforced retirement. In any case their edits have been reverted by User:Supdiop and they remain blocked indefinitely. Marking as resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abecedare (talkcontribs) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Caution, please - I would not be so quick to treat this matter as resolved. Mellowed Fillmore is/was a productive editor, in particular in baseball-related AfDs and notability matters. I would suggest that user talk page access not be blocked; there may be more to this story than is obvious now. It looks like the uncharacteristic behavior started suddenly around midnight, with no antecedent cause that I have found in the edit history. Presumably checkuser showed the account using the same IP address; can we tell if there was any sudden logging in or logging out, password changes, or other changes to the account in the last few hours/ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is just weird. Normally when someone "goes off," there is a precipitating incident. Here, MF was editing normally and productively until 00:27 this morning, and four minutes later just started on an odd little rampage of adding every AfD to the baseball delete sort. No hint of an explanation -- no harm in allowing the editor access to his talk page if there is an explanation to be provided and/or an unblock to be requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A CU can't determine if a user is in control of their account. Perhaps someone in Mellowed Fillmore's household gained control. The edits went from productive to bizarre in less than an hour. There may be some explanation forthcoming.- MrX 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • But «the CU data indicated that nothing had changed at all», if there is no password change, then the editor cannot have lost control of their account (Mellowed can log in at any time to say «That wasn't me!») Spumuq (talq) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's true. But someone could have still taken control, even if only temporarily, if they had access to a logged in device. Of course, this is all speculation.- MrX 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite know what happened, but it seems to me "out of whack automated script" is much more likely that "burnout" or "rampage" or something. If I'm right, though, I'm pretty puzzled by the {{retired}} banner; surely he knows that all that's needed is an "oops, sorry, messed up a script" to get unblocked? I'm tempted to remove the block as a gesture of "don't worry, all is well", on the theory that it's unlikely to be repeated. I know, people would probably like and explanation first, but I don't think there's much harm in putting the cart before the horse this once, just to see if we can get the retired banner out of there. Anyone mind if I try that approach? In particular, @Abecedare:? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: No objections from me. Either we regain a productive editor or, worst case, the vandalism resumes and a block can be re-applied. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removing the block per Flo's reasoning. Adding multiple unrelated delsorts is a little odd, slightly disruptive, but pretty harmless otherwise.- MrX 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Floquenbeam's humanitarian approach. In keeping with Floquenbeam's theory of the case, I note that every one of the questionable edits was made using using a script called User:Fox Wilson/delsort (FWDS). This is/was a productive editor -- he may just be embarrassed about the script getting away from him. Is anyone familiar with FWDS? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this suggestion, to try to get to the bottom of what happened here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • With Abecedare's OK, I've unblocked and left a "don't worry about it" message. Hope it helps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether I should say anything or just go quietly, but I feel I am compelled to speak in order to prevent Fox Wilson's script from being blamed for my 'spree'. It's a perfectly good script and nothing is wrong with it. (To be perfectly clear, I appreciate the desire that most of you have shown to assume good faith on my part.) What happened was really more a case of, as Abecedare suggested at ANI, a 'forced retirement'. I need to re-prioritize my time, and since Wikipedia has a very strong pull on those who try to leave, this time I'm not leaving myself any opening to come back. I know that since I've crossed the line over into vandalism, some of you will consider me persona non grata, as vandals are loathed and despised here. I also realize that I did create some extra work for other editors and they may be annoyed about it. However, keep in mind that you guys all get to keep editing while I've committed wiki-career suicide. I hope the fair-minded among you will be willing to listen to what I have to say.

  • As I have stated before, this is not my first account. While I am not going to divulge prior identities, I have made tens of thousands of edits over a multi-year period. If I decided to go postal for a few minutes at the end (and none of it affected the article namespace), well, whatever. This place has left me more than infuriated on a lot of occasions, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever been tempted to go out in a full blaze of glory. Just be glad you never made me an admin!
  • From the start of my rampage [230] at 4:31 UTC, to my being blocked at 5:05 UTC, I was able to tag roughly 200 articles. Now, I know that at the time of my edits, most American editors were probably asleep, but still!The bottom line is that I was able to go on unchecked vandalism spree for half-an-hour on Wikipedia! The longer you guys keep promoting fewer and fewer admins, well... you get the picture. I'm not going to say don't shoot the messenger, but please don't completely miss the message.
  • I see that I just got unblocked while typing this. Well, that's very kind of you Floquenbeam, and I appreciate your going to bat for me (so to speak), but I'd appreciate it if you restored the block.

Well, I've said my piece and now I'll go find the door. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Enjoy your time away from Wikipedia.- MrX 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think given the late hour we as a community moved pretty swiftly and effectively to block you and undo your damage, while giving you every benefit of the doubt. So I reject the suggestion that there is any kind of "message" here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit war over "Judeophobia"[edit]

After warning me about edit warring User:NeilN continued the edit war on a differn't article. We should probably both be blocked from the effected pages.Scientus (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No. As specified by you, you made a bold edit to Antisemitism, no doubt to bolster your case at Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Requested_move_25_May_2015. I reverted it and explained why on the talk page. Stop trying to force through your changes. --NeilN talk to me 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD WP:BOLDTITLE, not WP:BOLD.Scientus (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Look at your edit summary. You should have known the change would be opposed, anyways. --NeilN talk to me 06:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Note that Scientus is now attempting to remove this AN/I discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

attempted. No problem with having it. I just don't like to excessively bother people.Scientus (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The edit war stopped because I stepped back when one of your supporters reverted me. I note that neither have you have seen fit to respond to my objection on the talk page to your change. --NeilN talk to me 07:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears Scientus should get a case of boomerang. NeilN did everything in their power to prevent an edit war after Scientus kept making controversial edits without consensus. Makes you look even more guilty when you remove the very AN/I you started with the bogus reasoning that you didn't want to "bother" anyone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Attempting to remove an active ANI discussion should be grounds alone for blocking. Otherwise, it appears that the OP is attempting to use Wikipedia to create artificial notability to a theoretically legitimate but not widely used term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Vin09 is commended for being pro-active and checking to see if there are problems with two editors using the same device to edit. He/she is advised to read WP:COWORKER, to always log out when he/she is done and to go forth and edit. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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


I've been editing wiki since some time, contributed good enough. One of my colleague who have an account too, told his username as User:Sairam v. Recently, he saw my edits at Vizag page. He uses the same device which I've use to edit wiki like here. Will I be in trouble if any other uses the same device where I log in? Also, he had started a discussion on the same page, I've answered that discussion too, treating him as any other user. I got doubt if I would be suspected of sock puppet and banned from editing.--Vin09 (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: If someone else uses the same computer as you, providing the individuals involved log into different accounts at different times, then that is not sock puppetry. Accusations of meat puppetry might arise if you were working in conjunction with the other editor to push a particular POV but from what you say there is no evidence of that. In a nutshell, you haven't done anything wrong but just be careful to always log out to avoid any potential problems in the future.  Philg88 talk 13:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Vin09: The policy is at WP:COWORKER. There isn't a rule against it, but particularly if you edit in the same areas, which you indicate it you do, it can create concerns. There is no technical way for us to know whether you are in fact the same person making a WP:SOCK (which would be bad), were engaged in Meat Puppetry (also bad), or are two people editing totally independently, that just share the same computer (Totally fine). I would follow the guidance at WP:COWORKER on best practices in a situation like this. Bringing this to light on your own is definitely a good start. Monty845 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Str77 and Assyrian Kings[edit]

I have been having intense difficulties persuading this user on my own to appreciate our Original Research policy and he responds by what seems to be repeated disruption to make a WP:POINT (ie removing practically every sentence there because his OR won't stand). Please see the talk section Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I#This_edit_is_typical_of_the_problem Philip Mexico (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the other party in this dispute and was about to file a complaint as well. For more than a week now I have trouble with Philip Mexico due to his unwillingness to collaborate on articles.
I started working on the article Puzur-Ashur I, working in some information (some sourced, some unsourced) from the German Wikipedia. I was immediately opposed by some IP and by Philip. I had overlooked his first edit under that name and thus inadvertedly reverted it. He blanket reverted me whereas I then tried to work in his contributions as much as possible. This has always been my approach on this article and on Talk:Ila-kabkabu, whereto the dispute spilled over.
I repeatedly tried to discuss matters on the relevant talk pages, which Philip practically ignored. Thus, he was eventually blocked for his edit warring. (This can be seen on Talk:Puzur-Ashur I and Talk:Ila-kabkabu. Philipp's user talk page also shows admin User:C.Fred trying to reason with him.) After many, many backs and forth, Philip finally posted on talk pages but even then it took him a long, long time to provide sources for his preferred versions.
When he finally did provide a source, I again did my best to include it into the article. [231], whereas he insisted of inserting his previous POV.
This complaint is about behaviour but to clarify matters I will here report what the dispute is about:
  1. Philip insists that a particular section of the Assyrian King List must be titled in a certain way but not in another way, clearly due to his his opposition to a certain interpretation of this section. Both titles are translations and both are sourced to academic literature but Philip rejects one as POV-pushing. I eventually compromised to insert both version, even though this makes the wording a bit cumbersome.
  2. The main dispute is about the interpretation of the section, which I sourced to an academic work of reference. Philip first tried to remove it and then resorted to labelling it an interpretation held by "some" scholars, even though at the time it was the only sourced interpretation. He finally provided a source for another interpretation, which I then worked into the article. He still insisted on the word "some" (whereas in comments on the talk page) he insists how wide-spread it is. At the same time, Philip only wants some information from the source he provided to be included, other things he rejects.
I must be candid that neither of us has behaved in a pristine manner. We both have repeatedly reverted the other and yes, today I have for a moment violated WP:POINT: what I did is that I first tagged as unsourced anything that was not 100% sourced and then I removed it all, along with everything that was off topic or even remotely violating WP:SYNTH. The reason for this was, as I explained on Talk:Puzur-Ashur I, Philip's constant double standards when it comes to the requirement of sourcing information. Sometimes he inserts information without any source (be it positive assedrtions or negative contradictions of sourced scholarly view points), sometimes he removes sourced information for no valid reason (apparently when the source he provided went a little bit further than his view. See Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I#What_Mrs_Levy_actually_says)
Philip also shows no regard for tags placed into the article as an alternative to the constant reverting. He has repeteadly blanket reverted to his his version, removing the off topic tag I placed on one passage at Puzur-Ashur_I and never responded to the relevant section of the talk page.
Contrary to what Philip claims, this has never been about me wishing to push a certain POV. My history of Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I indicates that I shifted from a minimalist approach to one more inclusive in order to compromise with other editors (first an IP, then Philipp) and I even placed a request for more contributions - not support for my supposed POV but sourcing for any kind of view - at the Wikiproject Assyria [232], to which unfortunately no one has yet responded. This request came at the time Philip contradicted the sourced information in the article without bothering to provide a fitting source.
As for the IPs: several have also been involved (User:, User: Based on this edit I suspect that these IPs (who via WHOIS point to the same location) are the same as Philip. Str1977 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Those are indeed my two IP edits where I had forgot to log in and Verizon is constantly shifting IP numbers. Again, please see the talk section Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I#This_edit_is_typical_of_the_problem for my detailed explanation of what is going on. Philip Mexico (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(non admin observation) Per WP:SOCK editing while logged out can happen for innocent reasons. Unless there is deception, like agreeing with yourself in a discussion, no harm no foul.AlbinoFerret 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I never assumed anything else. However, the identity should be taken into account when looking through the history of the dispute. Str1977 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well admins, I was hoping one of you would take a look at how ridiculously hard it's been for me over 2 weeks to get this blatant synth totally misquoting Meissner, out of Puzur-Ashur I where it does not even belong. Every single time I took it out it came back. Nobody has responded yet, so tomorrow I will make one more attempt at removing the now-tagged OR. The rest of that article is still an incohesive mess, virtually every single attempt I made over two weeks to make it more cohesive got reverted too. Philip Mexico (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary by a user (who is now banned)[edit]


Not considered serious enough to warrant revision deletion.  Philg88 talk 05:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Earlier today I emailed the oversight team to request that an offensive edit summary by a user (who is now banned) be deleted from the revision history of the article on S.L. Benfica. I received an email back to say "Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard."

I do think that it would be appropriate for the offensive edit summary to be deleted. I would be grateful if an admin could assist with this. The user made four edits before being banned indefinitely. All four edits were vandalism, but one of them contained the offensive edit summary. Please see his or her contributions and edit summary at the following link [233]

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I personally think this doesn't rise to the level that it justifies revision deletion. Considering it under RD2 or RD3, the profanity in an edit summary is only slightly disruptive in this case, so the value of an intact and transparent log outweighs any value deletion of the summaries would bring. I don't see any indication the editor is banned, while they were blocked indefinitely, to justify deletion of material, the material must be added by an already blocked or banned editor in violation of that block or ban. If you can identify a previously blocked/banned editor who this new account is a sockpuppet of, you may be able to get someone to delete under RD5, but I would still abstain myself. Monty845 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, garden variety profanity doesn't really fit under our deletion criteria, which mostly cover stuff that's way over the top - if we deleted every "fuck" someone used on Wikipedia, we'd have very little time left to do anything else. As Monty says, if you can explain some more about the banned user situation, it's possible it would fit under another criterion, but my feeling right now is that if we'd need to work that hard to find a reason to make it delete-able, it's probably not something that really needs to be nuked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I personally felt that the edit summary was inappropriate. A couple of times before in the past, when I have contacted the oversight team about a similar type of offensive or inappropriate edit summary, the email that I have received before from the oversight team has said: "After review, we have determined that suppression is not warranted for these edits, but we have used the Revision Deletion extension (which allows the edits to be viewed by administrators only) to remove this content since they fall within the revision deletion policy as inappropriate content."

So although I felt myself that the offensive edit summary came under the category of "inappropriate content" which falls within the revision deletion policy, I do accept your reasons if you disagree with the need to delete it.

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My view is that while it's obviously offensive and inappropriate, it's not so shocking as to justify the rather dramatic step of revision deletion, let alone oversight. WP:CRD lists when we can use RevDel, and I think this qualifies as "ordinary" incivility. Not that you were in any way wrong to ask the question, of course. Lankiveil (speak to me) 15:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC).
The thing is that I've seen edit summaries that are not as profane as this rev'deltd. Of course, other stuff exists. Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor removing commas at random[edit]

MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is deleting commas at random, with no regard for grammar.[234][235][236][237] I reverted a few, but all of his edits look pointless and should be rolled back. KateWishing (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First he needs to be blocked, then they could be rolled back. This is once of those cases where it would be nice for established editors to be able to issue temporary blocks without having to wait for the admin corps to wake up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Another obvious sock who is doing the same thing: AndersonCooper11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[238] This is probably related to the recent Acid420 report. CheckUser for sleepers? KateWishing (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a useless admin, the ones I looked at look like good faith errors (removing Oxford commas, and the like). I'm not convinced from what I've seen that this is malicious, which is where it'd need to be before I'd consider blocking and doing a mass rollback. Has there been any attempt made to discuss this with the editor before bringing it here? Lankiveil (speak to me) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC).
I don't see a problem either - I'm not a big fan of commas and the few diffs I looked at seemed to make the sentence flow more naturally. Unless there's been a conversation about the pros and cons of MOS:COMMA, I think any administrative action is premature. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The editor is removing commas that are grammatically required, not just Oxford commas.
  • The diagnostic criteria require that symptoms become apparent in early childhood, typically before age three[239]
  • The most common form today is known as a residential garden, but the term garden has traditionally been a more general one.[240]
I'd rather not go through every one of his edits and check whether they are actively harmful or merely pointless. More importantly, the edits seem to have no purpose other than inflating sockpuppet edit count. AndersonCooper11 (talk · contribs) and MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs) both deleted commas from the same number article (9).[241][242] The similarity of usernames and edit style between MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs) and Acid420 (talk · contribs) is also probably not a coincidence. Three of Acid420's previous socks also targeted number articles (3, 6, 8).[243][244][245] KateWishing (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Found another WP:DUCK: CamTuckerLSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) KateWishing (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like this is an issue for a sock puppet investigation, not AN/I. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't pass the buck. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not my call, I'm not an admin. And it seems like the primary concern now is socking, not commas. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Since you realize it's not your call, you should line-out your original comment. Let the admins decide what to do. Socks are often blocked strictly from evidence posted here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, because I suggested starting a sock puppet investigation? The admins are going to do what they they are going to do, regardless of my suggestion to the OP. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
SPI's are a pain to construct and they're typically dismissed by the checkusers. If you want to go through that waste of time, go ahead and file an SPI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
All these ducks worry me. This appears that someone is trying to make a WP:POINTed campaign and using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Very similar to a user removing posts at random. Don't pass the buck guys, block and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted MitchellPritchettLSD here and here, and immediately thought that he is trying to get WP:Autoconfirmed, which is one of the signs of WP:Sockpuppetry. I knew that he would get warned about his comma removals sooner than later. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor forcing his edits through[edit]


Users are reminded to discuss content issues on an article's (or user's) Talk page before referring to ANI. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is forcing his edits through on the Battletoads article. They use edit summaries, but don't seem to address the reasons for their edits being reverted in a meaningful way. Also, this is probably suited for another place, but for the life of me I can't remember where. Eik Corell (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP has done a bit of copyediting, removed some unsourced content and removed some redundant categories. What's the issue? IMHO the article needs far more work as it is woefully undersourced and has the whiff of a fan's point of view about it. As for another venue, the talk page is the best first step, followed by dispute resolution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The filing party is advised that there is no evidence of problematic editing and they should take their concerns to the article/user talk page, as appropriate, per WP:DR.

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

Blocking threats[edit]


Riot kiddo blocked for 48 hours for harassment by Acroterion (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User IndianBIO is threatening to block me with overly libelous and exaggerated pretenses like vandalism, soapboxing, and advertising - which is clearly not what I'm doing. I tried resolving the dispute but he proceeded with blocking me. This is a violation of the civility code and a personal threat or attack in that manner. Evidences of such actions is evident in the messages the user left in my talk page. Hope you deal with this matter ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riot kiddo (talkcontribs) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: IndianBio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
User has been adding unsourced genres to a number of articles, was warned with level 4 for it which has autoblock warning in it. Came to my talk page with a high and mighty attitude of "trying" to help articles without adding sources. I mentioned clearly that this behavior continuation will lead to blocking since he/she has paid dust to numerous warnings left on the talk page by previous users also. End of story, started harassing my talk page. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Uh, this diff is not "OK", Riot kiddo – please see: WP:TPO. --IJBall (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And this does not qualify as proper notification of taking IndianBio to ANI... I'm seeing enough evidence here that IndianBio could legitimately feel like you are harassing them. --IJBall (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we just boomerang this now? Clearly the user is just upset by being blocked for legitimate reasons and is trying to get some revenge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, they've never been blocked. Though if they keep up with the attitude, that'll change very shortly. --Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You're harassing IndianBIO. They warned you appropriately, and you will be blocked if you continue, though not by IndianBIO, who is not an administrator. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit seems to show they aren't getting the message. --Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did this notion that level 4 warnings are blackmail, threats, and harassment come from? I don't get it. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? It's like there is an increasing pattern of people assuming bad faith. or it could just be me. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, with a note on indef if this happens again. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Wentworth (TV series)[edit]

Hi all! There is a problem over at the Wentworth (TV series) page where unsourced material is being added. The problem seems to be whether or not the show has been nominated for an award titled "Best International Show" by the TV Choice Awards. Now, this actually dates back quite a ways so I'll only show the last couple months. This info was added on 30 April 2015 with the only source being @Raintheone: stating "It was a nominee because I added it and I voted for it, do not remove stuff because the url redirects, find an archived version".

As we all know, her own personal experience cannot be counted as a source and, so, it was removed by @Poltair: on 1 May 2015 with these two messages being left on the talk page. The first of those messages actually includes two sources stating who the nominees were and Wentworth is not there. There are two sources confirming the show was not nominated!! That edit was then reverted again by Raintheone with her only justification being "that has ever right to be there as it is true." There's nothing but her word to say it is true but, apparently that's supposed to be good enough... even though there are sources saying it is not true. It was then removed by myself yesterday and re-added today, again by Raintheone, this time claiming "Link rot." This is not a case of link rot as her original source (found here) still works very well... it just doesn't state what she's claiming it states.

There are also these two conversations: this one titled "Accolades - TV Choice Awards 2014" and this one from Raintheone's talk page where she continues with her reasoning of "It's true because I said so."

Is this correct? Should this unsourced (and proven incorrect) info be allowed to remain on the page simply because one user says it's true? I'm thinking not and finding the user's reasoning to be absolutely baffling. Thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As one of the parties mentioned in this matter, I originally removed the information because I could not find it substantiated anywhere, and could only find the sources, that I quoted on the talk page, which seemed to contradict the claim that the show was a nominee. My removal was later reverted with comments that disappointed me, so rather than bicker about it I left it there. The issue is really with process of the People's Choice award which starts with a long list of candidates that the public are invited to vote for. These are selected by the editors of People's Choice magazine and the initial public vote narrows these down to a shortlist of 'nominees', usually four in each category, from which the winner is selected. Now, Wentworth was indeed on the long list of candidates in 2014, as it is again in 2015, but it did not make it to the the shortlist of nominees in 2014. The point is whether being chosen by the editors of magazine to be included on a long list of candidates for the public to vote from, constitutes 'nominated' status, and therefore worthy of inclusion in a list of accolades on a show's wikipedia entry. My opinion is that it does not. Poltair (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is the same. That's no different than being a pre-nominee at the Emmy's (which we do not list here).Cebr1979 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It was put forward on a list of nominations chosen for their own awards ceremony. Big potato, small potato.. it is still a potato. But I understand we all have different opinions on that matter. Thank you Poltair for acknowledging that what I added was correct and the show was nominated. In regards to this ANI, you can come here and paint me as the disruptive editor adding unsourced information. I know it was nominated and the link path changed to the current article, certain websites do so when information is updated for whatever reason. Those who know me on here know how much of my own money I have blown buying sources and old books to improve the project. If it was not true I would have not added it in the first place because all I have given my time to on here is removing flase information and adding true sourced content. I think I am an editor who you can assume good faith with. So yeah, as a community based project, take my word it was nominated and I will do my best to find a replacement source - even if I have to buy a back issue of the magazine online. I see that as a fair solution and we can all work together in peace. To add, Raintheone is male.Rain the 1 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) This seems like a content dispute that didn't really need to be brought to ANI; in addition, it appears that a solution has already been put forth. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not a content dispute. It's a matter of a user saying "her word" should be accepted and trusted just because (something she just said right here on this board). I will never merely "take a user's word" and no editor should.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)



(non-admin closure) Taken to WP:AIV Padenton|   21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

With edits like this (1, 2, 3), this new account's only purpose is for vandalism.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Stuff like this really should go to WP:AIV probably... --IJBall (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, will move!Cebr1979 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

No Gun Ri Massacre[edit]

Closed already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talkcontribs)

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

This may not be the correct place for this. It's such a convoluted mess I wonder if it's too much for something like WP:AC. I looked into this for a bit and I'm left with "it's complicated". I came to this through a RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. As can be expected on a page about atrocities, things are controversial and the matter seems to boil down to a dispute between Cjhanley and WeldNeck.

Cjhanley seems to legitimately be a Pulitzer prize winner on the subject. This certainly indicates that he knows more about the topic than I do, but may also increase the importance of well cited balancing sources. You don't commit a significant portion of your life to reporting on a subject without forming an emotional attachment to it. As indicated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Gun Ri Massacre he is also fairly new to WP, and may need help understanding WP guidelines. His account seems to have been created solely to work on this article, which is understandable. Also, a good deal of his references seems to be his own work, which can be touchy, but may also be expected from a subject matter expert.

WeldNeck also appears to need some help understanding WP guidelines and, in all fairness, has probably done a bit of edit warring. However, he seems to have pinpointed the main detractors to Hanley. As I'm sure everyone can appreciate, controversial articles can benefit from dissent, so long as it does not wander into WP:UNDUE. It does appear that there is some controversy in the sources over what exactly happened. It's not clear if this is legitimate debate or denialism al la Armenian Genocide.

At the base of it, the sheer weight of how long this has gone on is crushing. Help would be greatly appreciated, especially from someone well familiar with the Korean War. I am trying to moderate a bit, but I seriously doubt that either side is going to respect my opinion if it disagrees with theirs. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it appears that this has already been addressed here to no avail. Oh bother. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a battleground issue between two editors that will probably require some admin or community intervention. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Should this ani be merged to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cjhanley? ― Padenton|   21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Logically, yes. But that thread above might benefit from a fresh start. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we can postpone this for now. We have at least marginal acceptance of an edit-by-edit review on the talk page. If whatever the outcome is results in an edit war by the other party then I think there will be a strong argument for sanctions. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

BLP violations by IP editor[edit]


(non-admin closure) The first two IPs were blocked per WP:BLP by User:KrakatoaKatie and the articles were semi-protected for two weeks by User:Monty845. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP is variously denouncing people as paedophiles, [246],[247] and when reverted a bit of petty vandalism. [248] appears to be IP hopping as well.

Requesting a block of the IP addresses and a revdel of the offending entries per WP:BLP. I came straight here as the IP editor is edit warring to impose their changes and IP hopping, so immediate action seems to be required. WCMemail 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the first two IPs, but not the third since it hasn't been used since May 9. Also revdel'd the offending edits in Delavan, Illinois and Rossville, Georgia. Looks like an AT&T DSL user with a Verizon Wireless account. KrakatoaKatie 00:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I also semi-protected both articles for 2 weeks, so unless another IP pops up, I think we are done here. Monty845 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User Breem001[edit]


(non-admin closure) User was blocked indefinetly per WP:NOTHERE by User:Berean Hunter. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Breem001 (talk · contribs) has been editing on and off since 2012. Whenever he was on, it was a burst of vandalism of various kind: false information, hoax articles, random edits with misleading edit summaries, even inserting the word "crappy" :-) I reviewed all his edits, all of them were reverted and many described as "vandalism" in edit summaries, but surpizingly not a single reverter bothered to post a warning. Nevertheless all his life is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and IMO deserves an indef block without much talk: clearly this person knows what they do, and I would strongly suggest not to waste other wikipedians' time to keep an eye on him whether he pops out in next 6 months for a yet another ludic stint. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this is a pain, Staszek Lem, but reports like this go better if you pick out 3–6 diffs, and show us what you mean. Also, Breem001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has only posted once in the last month, so Admins may consider this mostly  Stale. --IJBall (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

An apparently invalid RfC that probably needs closing as null and void[edit]

See Talk:A Letter Concerning Toleration#RfC: Did Locke exclude Catholics from toleration in his Letter Concerning Toleration? (and also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#A Letter Concerning Toleration which looks set to be closed as declined, since there has been no prior discussion elsewhere). In essence we have an RfC asking Wikipedia contributors to provide their own interpretation of a primary source - material written by John Locke published in 1689 - and decide content accordingly, rather than following the multiple scholarly sources currently provided for content, which seem unanimous in reaching a conclusion already covered in the article. As I have repeatedly tried to explain to the contributor in question, User:Thepointofit, both on the article talk page, and on his talk page, this is clearly contrary to WP:RS and WP:OR policy, and accordingly wouldn't be valid even in the unlikely circumstances that the RfC went his way. Since it seems that User:Thepointofit is going to argue his (non-policy-compliant) case until the cows come home, and since it seems pointless to continue with an RfC that cannot possibly have any effect on article content, I therefore ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at the RfC, and that if they concur with my suggestion that it is null and void, close it forthwith to avoid dragging this pointless discussion out any longer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Close it down - Essentially I agree with AtG, but see my specific argument in the RfC - as long as one of the participants in unwilling to play by our rules, the RfC is a farce, and Thepointofit should be given the choice: follow our policies, or hit the road, voluntarily or by force. BMK (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I've closed the RfC based on both the information here and input from editors in it. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog[edit]

A user, Jytdog, has been involved in a multi-editor content dispute at the High fructose corn syrup page. The events (history page, talk page) started with Jytdog making dozens of edits to the page, with the apparent aim of restructuring it; this also involved major loss of content from the Health Effects section, and a merging of the 'Health effects of high fructose corn syrup' page into the High fructose corn syrup page. At some point Jytdog ran into spirited resistance from me and another editor, Bloodofox, repeatedly removed the 'disputed tag' from the page, calling it lame (which Bloodofox kept replacing) and eventually requested page protection, which is currently in place. He opened talkpage discussion by claiming 'all hell has broken loose' (apparently his OWNish hacking and rewriting the article was a gentle breeze through the meadows) Discussion ensued, which at first seemed civil. Soon, though, Jytdog announced to everybody the account I had created long ago but hadn't used for a while (and certainly not ever on the High fructose corn syrup page, or any page connected to it). This was an uncalled-for implication that I was hiding something, or edited anonymously for some ulterior motive. Jytdog also tried to archive this entire active discussion [249]. At the same time Jytdog's separate content argument (on the same talkpage) with Bloodox was proceeding apace, and Bloodox claimed that Jytdog had 'swept under the carpet' certain issued to do with the article's content. Jytdog claimed that was an accusation of 'bad faith', shortly before... accusing my IP range of being Bloodox's sockpuppet. He then opened the thread Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox, where another user, Kingofaces43 (who was on his side all along), had posted several messages in support of him. And then (as this was still ongoing) Jytdog proceeded to post two 'proposal for edit requests' on the article talk page:

'Proposal for edit request 1 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert these three diffs to restore the summary sentence in the lead about current consensus on health effects, and restore the sentence about "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health." to the body? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 2 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert this dif to remove links to the various specific dicarbonyl compounds and to remove the editorializing editorial comment there? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(the second is an incomplete description of what the revert would do - it would also restore content unsupported by the citation in front of it, which I pointed out in the note)

Then Kingofaces43 proceeded to post messages in support on both proposals.

The near-identical, manipulative ("Does everyone agree...") language, the accusations of sockpuppetry (“which is now clear”) when more than one person opposes him, the removal of the 'disputed' tag as 'lame' (indeed, the idea that anyone could dispute with him is 'lame'), the strongarming of the article's content all point to potentially major power issues going on with Jytdog, and this is causing significant disruption, when he is taking out on other editors. The actions of Kingofaces43 are moreover suggestive that it is Jytdog who is engaging in sockpuppetry. (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources and sources that fail WP:MEDRS should be removed from a mature article. We should strive to use high-quality sources rather than use poorly sourced text to argue with reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
"Primary sources should be removed from a mature article" is not taken from WP guidelines and has nothing to do with this thread. Jytdog enjoys a loyal group who will support him and/or derail any attempt to examine his "strong arm" style of editing; from what I have witnessed, every ANI opened against him in the past year or so becomes an example of this phenomenon. KingofAces can easily be mistaken for a Jytdog sock since they seem to agree 100% (at least at the GMO articles), but is not, to my knowledge, the same person. petrarchan47คุ 08:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The real DUCK test would suggest that the OP is a sock, and an investigation is open. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


I don't want to hear about Wikipolicy from someone who has been blocked literally dozens of times, for weeks at a time, for tendentious/disruptive editing, harassing other users, edit-warring in someone's userspace sandbox...

and has posted here five minutes after I put the ANI template on Jytdog's userpage??

Your record in fact even shows you have a history of “canvassing via email and making misleading accusations”...
petrarchan: if what you say is true, Jytdog's history is one of continuous mass CANVASSING to intimidate the opposition with sheer numbers and, if there are several such ANIs against him, there will be many recurrent names and this is worthy of investigation (especially if characters with a history as egregious as QuackGuru are involved (see above)) (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Roxy the dog is also one of them it seems. On Roxy the dog's talkpage, Adjwilley has pointed out: "Continuous pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations", "pointed comments to other users", creation of a "toxic atmosphere" on the Acupuncture talkpage, the same on the Ayurveda talkpage, editwarring on the Acupuncture article... Acupuncture is the page QuackGuru keeps vandalizing, that's why he got so many bans.
Also on Roxy the dog's talkpage, Adjwilley mentioned QuackGuru as having 'battleground mentality', 'annoying style of communicating and OWNing articles'
Roxy the dog in turn calls her opponents 'hordes of advocates' and 'POV pushers' on the talkpage, and has a stark red infobox on the userpage, reading 'This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.' And a block for 'personal attacks/harassment'... and rollback permission
I wonder if the slavish obedience of this group, who'll do his editwarring for him, and help keep his record 'clean', has anything to do with Jytdog gaining 'rollback' privileges... his brutalizing editing on the High fructose corn syrup page has included undoing the edit he doesn't like... and bulldozing the unrelated intermediate edits too, by different users (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
What I say is easily evidenced (and whether you are socking or not has no bearing on these facts). A couple of examples:
  • Bullying and intimidation as well as off-wiki communication was recently proven here * / *
  • Working in collusion with KingofAces and off-wiki canvassing was suggested here
petrarchan47คุ 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This posting appears to be the last gasp of a soon-to-be-blocked editor. The OP has engaged in fierce, personally-attacking editing in favor of FRINGEy health ideas for the past few weeks (namely that High fructose corn syrup is really, really bad for you). As of yesterday they appear to have added the use of sockpuppetry to their arsenal, in response to my showing up at the article. The OP kindly linked to the case which I will do again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox.
the key diff in that case is this one, by "bloodofox" who wrote: "So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead.... You can see this edit here: [250]." that diff is an edit by that matches the description given by bloodofox (the dif is not a typo).
It is interesting that the OP/IP claims that bloodofox is someone else in their opening statement and just above. I guess they are all in on the SOCKing. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (striking, no longer see this as pointing to IP edit Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
No idea if it's a sock, but your smoking gun is a misunderstanding. The diff they linked has three intermediate revisions by you, in which you revert some of their changes. In other words, the diff is meant to show your reversion. The IP edit (inadvertently?) included in the diff link is minor copyediting and clearly does not match Bloodofox's description of their edits. KateWishing (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That is not correct. The dif starts with the IP's first rewrite of the body, skips over my three edits (which the IP reverted), and ends with the IP's rewrite of the lead. Not a single dif there under "bloodofox". It is bloodofox disclosing that they are editing as the ip. That is not ambiguous. I agree it would have been better had they started it one dif back and shown this, but the one they showed was good enough, and included own my edits and the IPs. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The diff contains four edits, three by you,[251][252][253] and one by the IP. It does not start with the IP rewriting the body (which never happened), and it does not skip over your edits. The changes shown are largely yours. Bloodofox rewrote the controversy section and modified the lead earlier using their own account. You omitted a key part of Bloodofox's comment above: "However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: [diff]" They are linking to your edits, not theirs. KateWishing (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Two things. This is not SPI so there is no point us debating this here. Second thing - I will go ahead and respond to you. I believe the diff provided within that dif was to show 'their version. To do that perfectly, they should have started one diff back, as I linked to in my last post. To show what you are saying very clearly, they should not have included the dif by the IP and should have just shown diffs be me. (btw, mine existed before, in a much more clear version -- if their goal was to show mine they could have done that much more easily) I will also add, the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox has shown very little interest in actually communicating and reaching consensus; that is consistent across all their behaviors. DUCK in every reasonable way. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (strike ref to ambiguous dif Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
I did not post this on SPI because I hoped you would correct your own error. The problem with your interpretation is that the diff does not show their version. Bloodofox's comment describes their changes as rewriting the controversy section to include a Washington Post source, and to "mention the public controversy in the lead." This is clearly in reference to these edits, made under their own account. In contrast, the diff in question removes both the Washington Post source and the mention of controversy in the lead. These are your changes, apart from minor copyediting by the IP. At no point has the IP rewritten the controversy section or added a mention of it to the lead. KateWishing (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The IP added content to the lead about mercury in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but Bloodofox's comment could not have been referring to an edit made several minutes later. The actual diff cited removes that bit from the lead. KateWishing (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at your analysis more, KateWishing and I agree. bloodofox was likely referring to my edit. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry our only interactions so far have been disagreements. KateWishing (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It is all in good faith and civil too. thanks for catching that! Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jytdog If you are referring to the material here[254] you removed this indicating a MEDRS</> source is needed for this. However, there is no comment in the material you removed relating to medical issues - therefore your edit summary that it was removed because MEDRS is required is inaccurate, misleading to other editors - and indicative of strong-arm tactics.DrChrissy (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
in your drive to pile on, i believe you just violated your topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Please explain.DrChrissy (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suspiciously talented new editor appears out of nowhere and attacks Jytdog; Petrarchan47 jumps on the bandwagon. What's new? bobrayner (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You find the comments to be an "attack" on Jytdog? Aren't ANI's meant to gather evidence? You're proving my point, at any rate. petrarchan47คุ 03:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

proposal to warn to comment on content, not contributor, and to lay off the rage[edit]

So here are the IP's last 14 contribs. Contribs with no diffs are not personal attacks. The IP is on a bit of a rage binge. Please warn the IP to comment on content, not contributor, and to lay off personal attacks. Thanks.

  • 03:36, 28 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+286)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox ‎ (→‎Comments by other users) more invective
  • 03:23, 28 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2,632)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox ‎ (→‎Comments by other users) - more invective
  • 12:39, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+784)‎ . . Talk:High fructose corn syrup ‎- more invective
  • 11:28, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: syntax)
  • 11:25, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,550)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog) - more rage
  • 10:29, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,204)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog) - more rage
  • 07:10, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+88)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: added sigbature)
  • 07:09, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+253)‎ . . User:Jytdog ‎
  • 06:59, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+33)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: syntax)
  • 06:57, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+276)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox ‎ (→‎Comments by other users) - sarcasm
  • 06:47, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4,013)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: new section) - invective
  • 04:05, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4,195)‎ . . Talk:High fructose corn syrup ‎ - invective
  • 23:09, 26 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,591)‎ . . Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) ‎ (→‎A way to prevent revertwars from erupting)
  • 23:04, 26 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+607)‎ . . Talk:High fructose corn syrup ‎- invective

Instead of using the page protection at the article to discuss changes, which is what it is for, the IP is just raising cain, and bloodofox is also not discussing anything on the article Talk page. It doesn't appear that they intend to work out the content issues while the article is locked down. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can;t believe Jytdog now accuses me and bloodofox of refusal to discuss, after him being the one who tried to 'accidentally' archive the talk page while active discussion was going on, then got touchy and broke off the exchange ('We are done') as soon as the talk got hot for him and his misconducts were recounted:

I will say this one more time - stop commenting on contributors ("sweeping under the carpet" is an accusation of bad faith editing). The next time you do this, I will simply stop responding to you and we will need to work through some more formal process that will slow things down. OK, would you please provide here the content you would want to see, and the sourcing for it? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I've provided it above, thanks. And given your goofy antics here—at this point everything from removing NPOV tags because they're "lame" during active disputes to "accidentally" archiving active talk page threads that I've commented on earlier in the day—maybe it's best that you just do that. Given that you're eager to resort to tactics like that, maybe you should take a break for a while. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
bloodofox, I just realized that based on what you wrote above, and especially on this dif, where you link to this dif by, it appears that you have been editing here under a username and an as an IP. I actually thought you were several people. This is a clear violation WP:SOCK. You are the only person supporting the position you have been taking here. That changes everything. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (striking interpretation of dif. appears that "this edit" was meant to point to my dif. SOCK concerns remain Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
Couldn't help noticing this... 'accusation of bad faith editing' indeed... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We are done. I did assume that the IP/Nitrobutane and you were different people. That was AGF. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Then he started two biased-worded polls that pretended the flaky accusations of socking were already proven:

'Proposal for edit request 1 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert these three diffs to restore the summary sentence in the lead about current consensus on health effects, and restore the sentence about "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health." to the body? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 2 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert this dif to remove links to the various specific dicarbonyl compounds and to remove the editorializing editorial comment there? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

- the second of which misled the reader about what the [diff] would actually do - It would restore content that was clearly misrepresenting its source, and which I left the invisible comment about. Anyone who follows the link I gave in that comment would see that. And immediately Kingofaces43,who was in close contact with Jytdog from the start and colluded with him on this issue specifically, supported Jytdog on both polls. Working in collusion with KingofAces and off-wiki canvassing was previously suggested here, and further canvassing concerns have been raised on Kingofaces43's talk.
Last and worst, Jytdog to begin with was canvassed by Sciencewatcher, the user I was disagreeing with over the HFCS article before Jytdog showed up.

and now Jytdog, after claiming on the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox that he is "a science-based editor who follows policy and guidelines" and when I pointed out he has a record of misdeeds (eg his bullying against petrarchan47DrChrissy - including hounding her out of this very thread instead of responding to her comment!), has called it rage. And demanded that his conduct not be discussed at all, despite ANI is the place for discussing conduct, and examine evidence.(He also suggested a Calorie Control Council-funded study to us on talk - CCC are an industry interest group who call HFCS/fructose 'reduced-calorie and claim health benefits for it - 'science' indeed) Demanding sanctions for daring to mention his misconduct, is very like his falsely accusing Bloodofox of SOCK when he pointed out Jytdog's misdeeds. Meaning, he'll turn on anybody who points out his bullying. Posting a piece of someone's contribs history, with a load of links in it and strong words in red alongside, BUT not quoting any of the relevant passages (as my posts were statements of fact from his history of harassment, and might indict him); hoping to create an impression to all who read it, and nobody will bother to follow the links. When he could have just posted the diffs, and used the space saved to give actual quotes. Diffs would show me saying he is guilty of past bullying and harassment, +offwiki canvassing - as indeed he is. [[255]], [[256]] And collusion, specifically with Kingofaces: [[257]]. Me pointing out the way he acts towards other editors is apparently a “fierce personal attack”. A recent collection of his odium was here, at ANI, regarding his bullying against DrChrissy - including telling her to 'get out more', effing and blinding on her talkpage, saying her edits were 'slimey varmint behaviour'... it [goes on].
His words here are all “It is all in good faith and civil too. thanks for catching that!”; pretending to not have noticed the obvious (that there's zero evidence of socking in the diffs). By Hanlon's razor this should be believed, but his history shows him repeatedly claiming to not notice what he's doing, when it is more than obvious. His actions are at odds with his words: canvassing QuackGuru (who posted here five minutes after I put the ANI notice on Jytdog's user page) and Roxy the dog for this thread, and canvassing Kingofaces47 for the HFCS article and talkpage (see above). petrarchan47 put me onto the thought that there might be a group of people weighing in to anything he does, and presto...
(Jytdog's claims that I posted 'invective' against him (though I never invaded his talk nor used expletives as h'es been known to) are ever more hypocritical through him replying to my accusations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox:
“invective harms no one but the person who posts it”
Bobrayner: Just what do you mean by 'suspiciously talented', 'out of nowhere', and 'jumps on the bandwagon'? What kind of an implication is that? If you have something like that to say, then say it, instead of sinuous insinuations.

And considering Jytdog's record of personal attacks on petrarchan47's talkpage, then pretending he didn't notice being warned off thrice, it's understandable petrarchan should bring up those incidents from his record. [Edit: shorten words, struck mishtaek, +new info] (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions as this user has done above about me is exactly why I'm supportive of a warning here. Claiming I was "colluding" when I had already been independently alerted at Wikiproject Med here and talking to Jytdog after this user's behavior issues were apparent seems to be this user's attempt to lash out at other users for opposing their edits and alerting them to problematic behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support warning. I'd prefer to wait for the sock-puppet posting to conclude, but I think a warning is merited no matter. Obviously involved in this one, but the ferocity in which this IP has been lashing out at other editors who tried to approach this editor civilly has been extremely disruptive. A lot of pot calling the kettle black behavior after their own initial actions were called out that only got worse as others tried to get them to stop. Anyone reading the article history and talk page (or even above) should be able to gleam the problem with this behavior pretty quickly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to note what started this, we had 8 reverts by the IP in less than 24 hours, 8 additional ones by Bloodofox, and 12 total reverts if we consider the two the same person. This editor is coming in hard and fast while breaking a lot of talk page guidelines while edit warring no matter the outcome, so something should be done to alleviate their behavior issues since it doesn't look like they're seeing the problem. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
See my post above for evidence of Jytdog and Kingofaces arranging to work in concert. Also, see [history of HFCS article] for evidence of dozens of edits by Jytdog, tearing up the article and rearranging it his way, deleting content - even entire sections, deleting NPOV tags in the middle of active discussion, breaking the entire discussion by 'accidentally' archiving the talkpage... After this, Kingofaces has the gall to say I came in 'hard and fast' etc etc..? (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If you really want more than a warning from here, feel free to keep making personal attacks by misrepresenting my statements as you've been doing here. The behavior under scrutiny in this section is yours, so I highly suggest you look at the edits you've made that have been pointed out. I still doesn't look like you're seeing how problematic your behavior is and the battleground behavior you're engaging in, so I'm disengaging from here for now and waiting for the sockpuppet investigation to wrap up first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are we proposing to warn? Is there some belief that the user in question is unaware of Wikipedia policy? If you believe they are aware, warn them. You don't need permission. If you believe they are already aware of the policy, what the heck are we warning them for? Is it like "double secret probation"? Seriously. If someone is aware of policy, they don't need a warning. If they continue to violate policies they are aware of, they need blocks. If they are not continuing those violations, then they don't need anything. Since said user is participating in this discussion they are aware of the policy. There's no need to "propose" to make them aware. They are. Unless you want to propose a block or a ban, this is a phenomenal waste of time and server space. --Jayron32 02:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Jayron32 - so close it, already then, or take action. i agree this is a waste of time. I think this raging behavior is blockable, but that is not my call. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people at ANI seem to not want to impose bans if a warning hasn't been given an "official" warning by the closing ANI case first. That's been the practice since I came here a few years ago at least. May not be for the best, but that seems to be the environment. If someone not involved wants to propose a block instead, I'd prefer that, but I'd have enough drama from this user already to avoid this ANI until the SPI is concluded. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor removed all but a small part of an article on Scottish village, stating that WP policy is that all unreferenced claims should always be removed[edit]

User:Mcmatter has removed all but a small part of the article on Borve, Lewis. I tried to discuss with him on his talk page, but I hit a brick wall when he asserted that Wikipedia's policy was that "if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". I questioned that sweeping assertion and he could not justify it, preferring to collapse the discussion from his talk page saying he is "done with" the conversation. The discussion is in the history here.

Mcmatter originally became involved with the article to support the action of editor MacRusgail, a user who has been warned for repeated incidents of bad behaviour and threatened with a block. MacRusgail's action had been to revert an edit I had made on the grounds that I had removed two references, references which in my view were completely unnecessary - one being to a road users' website, included as a source for the assertion that the main road through the village is called the A857, information that is easily verifiable and that nobody had challenged. Compulsively sourcing such information makes for a feel that is sophomoric.

It is interesting that Mcmatter and MacRusgail, who have such similar usernames, should share such an extremist view of references and be applying it to the same article at the same time.

For the record, in my editing I removed a few pieces of non-notable information but did not, as far as I can recall, add any new information. In fact I shortened the article considerably, but this was mainly due to improving the style. So I am not someone who has kept adding information needlessly. But I do think that in its form before the involvement of Mcmatter and MacRusgail it was a good article undeserving of being slashed back to the quick, and I do not believe that Wikipedia has a policy that unreferenced claims should always be removed, which is the point on which the discussion with Mcmatter turned.Lordelephapia (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy that unreferenced material must be or even should be removed. In fact WP:PRESERVE says otherwise. I do think that in this case User:Mcmatter is engaging in destructive tactics that are a form of almost "control bullying" which is poor etiquette for such an inoffensive article. Sometimes editors make tiresome demands for citations for things that could easily be found, or which are so uncontested that the demand itself can seem like a form of intimidation. Removing a citation, however, was not helpful. I presume that much of the other content could be cited to local history literature. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually Mcmatter's correct, Wikipedia cannot be used to post anything that isn't reliably sourced, no matter who thinks it's true. So yeah, McMatter's correct KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Read WP:UNSOURCED. The guideline is quite nuanced as does not support such blitzing behaviour. There is no such rule. Huge swathes of content on Wikipedia is unreferenced. Content can be challenged and can be removed, but there is no rule that says uncited content "cannot" exist or that it should be removed, let alone must be removed. Show me where it is. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Paul B, not every statement in an article needs to be referenced. It's preferable that sources are provided but a statement can exist, unreferenced, until another editor questions whether it is verified and challenges it. If every sentence that didn't have a citation was removed from en-Wikipedia, I'm guessing Wikipedia content would shrink by 90%. Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute, and thus not appropriate for this page. I notice that none of you has so much as raised this on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue for this discussion. RolandR (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of all content, but if it's being re-added, then WP:BURDEN applies - "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of content, per WP:VERIFY and WP:OR- Wikipedia clearly states a requirement for reliable sources. It should definitely not be readded without reliable sources. Also, this seems like a content dispute, why isn't it at the talkpage? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The relevant guidelines do not support such blitzing destruction of unchallenged content. See WP:UNSOURCED. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Paul Barlow you've repeated yourself about three times with the same sentance, go back and read WP:UNSOURCED, it says, on the very first line " All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." it goes on to say Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source . So yes, WP:UNSOURCED definetly supports removal of unsourced items, McMatter is still right. Keep calm and add reliable sources. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't repeated the "same sentence" even once. I have referred to the same guideline to two different editors (not "about three times"). And no, you didn't read it very well. It does not support blanket removal of content. It advises asking for or looking for sources, and tagging, not blanking. I repeat what I said befotre to you. The guideline states that "Content can be challenged and can be removed, but there is no rule that says uncited content "cannot" exist or that it should be removed, let alone must be removed". I suspect you know this, and are perfectly well aware that I read every word of the passages in question. Paul B (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have readded some content to the article, with sources, and I see Voceditenore has taken up the baton too. In the meantime, I would suggest Mcmatter calm down and look for sources himself (perhaps the National Archives of Scotland has something?) before he tries to take Port Carlisle Junction, Scenic Daylight, Tracking (particle physics), Winter vacation and Writing in Ancient Egypt to AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So now admins are attacking users or placing words in their mouths? I had no intention of taking this article to AfD, never said or implied I was doing any such thing. The content which I challenged and removed was the history on a tiny village in Scotland, all the information is in the history for easy retrieval for anyone with the knowledge or access to source the information. I have done nothing which is outside policy. I have included the discussion from my talkpage for all to review.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't used any admin tools in this discussion, so I don't understand how that's relevant. My point is that you seem to keen to delete content and point fingers at everyone else to fix it, rather than doing the work yourself. Is that really what's best for the enyclopedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333 is right. If both McMatter and Lordelephapia had worked togther to provide proper references (always a good thing), instead of edit warring (always a bad thing), festooning the article with banners (rarely an optimal thing), and pointlessly arguing here (never an optimal thing), the encyclopedia would have been made better and in a much shorter time. Geesh! This whole farrago rather reminds me of the (satirical) tag at the top of User talk:Sitush. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
True, but Lordelephapia at least has the excuse the he's a very inexperienced new editor. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's true too, Paul. Not a very fab introduction to Wikipedia :( and all the more reason why the deleters/festooners should have helped out a bit there. Voceditenore (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted MacRusgail's edit because his only stated reason for reverting my extensive and mainly stylistic revision, that I spent a lot of time over (not in finding sources, but in crafting), was that I had removed references for two tiny pieces of information, one of them being for the official number of the main road through the village. He gave his reason in the summary to his edit. Had he just added the references back in for those bits, I probably wouldn't have done anything. Mcmatter referred to WP policy so I tried to engage him on his talk page (and ironically, as well as asking him what statements he thought required references the other thing I asked him was to point me to a source for his understanding of WP policy), but I didn't revert his edit, even though I felt like doing so, restoring what he had deleted and asking him in the summary what exactly he challenged the verifiability of. So he is right to say below that no edit war has taken place. But he then says that if he had "caught" the material, and so on, not realising that if he applied that way of thinking more widely he'd delete 90% of Wikipedia, as Liz says above. I intend my main contribution to Wikipedia in the near future to be stylistic revision, so I may just wait for what the Borve article looks like in a few weeks time and then review it for style, leaving all references be.Lordelephapia (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333 second comment is fair, his first is not, It doesn't matter if you use the tools or not, as this is an admin board an admin should be ever so caution on their words. No edit war has taken place, this only leads me to believe you are only reading the headlines and not the story. I stand by my edit, if I had caught this material when it was first entered into the article nothing would have happened and no one would have cared, but because it was caught a year later and a big red number shows up, some begin to scream deletionist and BAD BAD!. If I would have left the tags they would have sat there for years because again no one cared. User such as I do care and help the encyclopedia by holding it to the higher standard, if everything is left then we would be Wordpress. As this has all happened within the last 24 hours I do think everyone should probably take a step back and look at everything as I can see some people are only reading what they want to and is very quickly going to turn into another witch hunt by the mob.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Mcmatter, the only thing I think was wrong is that you didn't show evidence you had searched for sources. If you had said, "look, I have raked through Google Books, and all my archive subscriptions and I can't find any evidence the church opened in 1895, aside from a blog saying it opened in 1896. Until a definite source comes forward, out it goes - we can't put hearsay and rumour on the encyclopaedia" then I wouldn't have had a problem. This and this shows I am no stranger to removing large amounts of content from articles myself. But it has to be done with care and showing good faith attempts at improvement first - hence the rather tongue in cheek reference to Port Carlisle Junction which has lain as a forgotten unsourced stub (much like its real life counterpart) for about 9 years .... at least until this afternoon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The failure to understand that WP:V says content must verifiable -- not that all content must actually be verified by an explicitly cited source -- and the consequent idea that WP:BURDEN is carte blanche for removal of anything unsourced, without consideration of the circumstances, is a beautiful example of rigid and unsubtle interpretation of policy and guidelines to the detriment of the project. Except in special circumstances such as BLP (and even there a modified version of what I'm about to say still applies) the test for removal is that the person doing the removal genuinely believes that no source exists -- the test is not that no source has actually been produced. Here's what BURDEN says:
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
A footnote confirms this: is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.
So let's say a trustworthy editor (i.e. any editor who hasn't given us reason to believe he or she isn't trustworthy) says, on the talk page, "My notes show that while researching this article, one of the several books of Smallville history I used said that Smith's Smithy Road was named for a smithy, owned by John Smith, that used to be there. Unfortunately I spilled coffee on the notes and can't read which source this came from, and my wife returned everything to the library (which is in a distant city) before I was able recover that information." In this case, there's no reason the Smith's Smithy Road factoid can't remain in the article for years -- indefinitely -- without an explicit cite, though of course with a [citation needed] to encourage someone to chase one down.
As a practical matter, if a statement is genuinely disputed and no source can be produced (in a reasonable time -- not necessarily immediately!) then that statement will have to go. But inherent in that narrative is that there are editors who truly question whether any source exists. That's completely different from people who just run around removing, on sight, perfectly harmless and likely verifiable statements that haven't been verified yet. These people trumpet BURDEN without understanding it, and imagine themselves to be helping the project. They're not. (And such misapplication of BURDEN is often used as a form of harassment of other editors and their favorite articles or topics.) EEng (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding from User:WordSeventeen[edit]

Additional proposal for WordSeventeen[edit]

This is just a proposal that was originally an opinion. We're all aware of WordSeventeen's bogus editing and claims. As recently, they were unable to cooperate with others, harass editors, being uncivil, and edit disruptively. I propose that WordSeventeen's Pending Changes Reviewer and Rollback rights be removed. They have only been on Wikipedia for 11 months, and it seems they still need to learn how to be proper on Wikipedia before retrieving those user rights again. No person, with any kind of user rights, should be acting this way as WordSeventeen did. They were granted the user rights too early. Callmemirela (Talk) 20:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've revoked WordSeventeen's PC reviewer and rollback permissions based on his behavior here. KrakatoaKatie 07:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Garbling at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest[edit]


Wesley Mouse and blocked for 24 hours by Berean Hunter for 3RR violations (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

user:Wesley Mouse insists on garbling my comments (example) because he thinks they are libelous. Please comment.- (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have asked the IP to kindly remove, redact, or rephrase offending comments that are aimed at my personality. I have reminded the IP that we are suppose to discuss content not cast our personal opinion on editors in a demeanour that may tarnish an editor's personality. The IP has point-blank refused to act upon the comments that I have pointed out to be deeply offending, and has repetitively told me to "feel free to engage" and to "stop wasting time". The one wasting time is the IP who is failing to comply with a courteous request. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually the comments you removed were aimed at your position. It is not a personal attack to say you hold a position on a subject which can be readily seen from your talkpage comments. It is permissable to remove personal attacks. It is not permissable to alter other's comments because you dont like how they portray you. Also all I see from that page is you arguing against consensus using, what can best be described as, rubbish and/or synthesis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The comments you redacted were in no way personal attacks and you should not have touched them. --NeilN talk to me 15:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

(EC) Seems overly harsh to block the IP whose comments were being altered. Granted a lot of reversions but a)their comments were being altered out of process and b)blocks preventative not punitive - once Wes has been blocked there would be no need for further reversions as the cause of the disruption will have been removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Additionally - reverting vandalism is an exemption to 3RR, and the definitions of 'Vandalism' under 'talk page vandalism' states 'illegitamately altering others talk page comments'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither of the editors were justified by 3RR exemptions. 3RR is policy and TPO is a guideline and the block is preventative and not punitive. Both appeals were subsequently declined by another admin. There was no vandalism here. I'm happy to let others review and discuss however.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
However Vandalism is policy. "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments." Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The key word there is "Illegitimately". That word is defined by context in the rest of the Vandalism policy, where illegitimate clearly means "with intent to harm or disrupt for its own sake". Unless the intent is disruption for disruption's sake, it is not vandalism. It may be disruptive, but not all actions that have a disruptive effect are vandalism. Only those actions with a deliberate intent to harm Wikipedia are considered vandalism. As long as the user believes their actions to earnestly be allowed by policy, or to be beneficial to Wikipedia, it isn't vandalism. It may be blockable for other reasons, so don't get me wrong there, but on the narrow question of if it is vandalism, no it isn't. --Jayron32 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That is not what the policy says. 'Defined by context in the rest of the vandalism policy' is opinionated guff. It clearly states illegitimate deleting or editing. It does not say 'illegitimate where illegitimate means whatever admin decides it means at the time'. Either Wesley's altering of others comments was legitimate, or it wasnt. There is no 'well it wasnt legitimate but its not illegimate *enough*'. The policy is clearly worded with no ambiguity. So either you agree Wesley was wrongly editing anothers comments, which is vandalism by the definition of the vandalism policy, or you dont agree with the policy as it is written. And even then its ridiculous to block *after* the person whose comments were being altered has brought it to this board for attention. A simple 'Stop edit warring while its discussed' would have been sufficient. Its pure punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There may be reasons to block or sanction him for the removal of such comments, but WP:VANDALISM is not that rationale. Vandalism is, can only be, has only ever been, and will only ever be actions taken with deliberate intent to harm Wikipedia. There are a thousand ways to get blocked. Vandalism is only one, but calling things vandalism that are not vandalism is not appropriate. Again, it doesn't mean that a person can't be blocked for doing something else wrong (and saying that specifically in this case doesn't mean that this person should. And saying that doesn't mean they shouldn't be). It just means that it wouldn't be vandalism they are blocked for. Use the word correctly please. --Jayron32 01:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That is an amazing pile of lawyering just to justify a block against an editor that came here for help. I hope you apply that level of scrutiny every time someone is blocked for vandalism. (Yup, it's me, IP changed, can't help it.)- (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

An unblock request based on an understanding to not engage in further edit warring would hopefully have been granted. The request that was actually made instead wikilawyered over the reversions. TPO should probably be tightened. In almost every dispute I see here about someone reverting a talkpage comment, we would have been better off without the reversion and the accompanying drama. (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AntonioMartin desysopped[edit]

For violation of policy in relation to the account User:Le Pato Frances; AntonioMartin is desysopped. They may only regain the tools through a successful request for adminship.

Supporting: Courcelles, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Yunshui

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:AntonioMartin desysopped

Possible Sockpuppetry at Talk:Mair TV[edit]

Can we get a few extra eyes over at Talk:Mair TV? I'm worried we might have a case of sockpuppetry on our hands. I think User:Jonnybrown333, User:MTV772, and User: might be the same person. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mair TV and its talk page are deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: OK, so the top account and the IP have no contribs outside of the deleted article. That leaves just MTV772... --IJBall (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:MTV772 is currently blocked for 24 hours for making a string of rubbish pages, seemingly about employees of that organisation. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Shared account being used for harassment: MaWillder[edit]

Not sure why we're patiently explaining to a troll how to properly sign their comments... blocked indef, shared account used to get autoconfirmed and harrass another user. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The account MaWillder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is shared according to this edit and this website. My user talk page was protected by Zad68 because of harassment and this is a continuation of that harassment as the user admitted they are the same as the IP user (see linked edit above). Requesting account be indefed as TOS violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to delete an account I didn't even create, go ahead. And as for the supposed 'harassment' of you by me, I could only wish to be subject to 'harassment' like that I were an editor, filled with information and suggestions, but that's just my odd tastes. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaWillder (talkcontribs) 21:27, May 27, 2015‎ (UTC)
Not to mention that I find it pretty bizarre that you speak of 'continued' harassment while every single one of my edits was a reaction to your action and not once did I reply to myself on your talk page. But, again, that's just me that finds this peculiar. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaWillder (talkcontribs) 21:38, May 27, 2015‎ (UTC)
@MaWillder: please properly sign your Talk page comments – do not use "nowiki" around your "~~~~" tags... --IJBall (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP:SIG explicitly allows customizing your signature with markup tags, which is exactly what I'm doing. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaWillder (talkcontribs) 21:55, May 27, 2015 (UTC)‎
No – you need to get rid of the "nowiki" stuff... --IJBall (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you can customize it by going to Preferences>User Profile>Signature. Using nowiki means that your tildes (~) are just tildes and not your signature. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly the behavior of the IP editor that was doing the previous harassment. See Talk:Self-harm#The_current_image_is_not_representative EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing my points on the irrelevance of the requirement to sign your edits to a broader audience of administrators, Fir. I would not venture to do this myself. That said, let me mention that if you've managed to identify me using my ~~~~, then it means it is clearly unique and therefore, by definition, a signature. ~~~~

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

Whoa, what just happened?[edit]


Even Admins can't prevent the occasional site crash... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

For some reason Wikipedia wasn't working for a while. Did something go wrong with the coding? --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Had that problem too for about 10 minutes. "Internal server error" was message I got. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a run of the mill server burp I'd guess. The IRC side of things means these type of issues normally get dealt with in a matter of minutes. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering the timing, I strongly suspect [291] this here is related. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jimbo! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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



*Castle&Gardens* blocked one week for disruptive editing by Jayron32. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

*Castle&Gardens* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User's edits started off with POV commentary, claiming some of which was just capitalizing proper nouns... Or rather, capitalizing random common nouns as if they were proper nouns.

When some basic guidelines and policies (including WP:NOR) were explained to them, as well as the difference between proper nouns (New York City, Bugs Bunny) and common nouns (city, rabbit), he went back and continued to capitalize random common nouns and added more original research.

After this, he went on to capitalize random common nouns at Walmer Castle, as well as adding some editorial commentary ("the castle" -> "this Historic House") and