Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

My account has been blocked

Dear Sir/Madam

I have a registered account from 2009 onwards. After a long time when I logged in to my account today... I see that I have been blocked and a message displayed

"It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts."

Can you please look into the matter.

Thank you Anoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your account isn't blocked - you wouldn't be able to post here if it was. Or are you referring to another account? If so, what is its name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The other blocked account is Anoop (talk · contribs), obviously. Fishface gurl (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Then again, that account is not blocked either, so I guess problem solved. Fishface gurl (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Anoop is a relatively common name, of Indian origin. That account may have nothing to do with the OP's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This account isn't blocked but there exists a cat of blocked accounts suspected to belong to this user: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anoop4uall. —SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. Actually I was referring to what Spaceman just mentioned above. When I login to my account, I see a message "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) The strange part is... I have no idea why those 5 account are linked to my account in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Because now inactive (since last May) admin CKatz blocked and tagged those accounts; given the SPI wikilink is red, I'm guessing they were so-called duck blocks (standard Ent rant goes here). I've cleared the tags and left CKatz a talk page message. NE Ent 10:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't hold your breath waiting on a comment, they haven't been active several months.--SKATER ^{T a l k} 10:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, please restore these tags for (at least) the duration of this discussion. You are making it a lot harder for other people to check this. While the tags shouldn't have included a redlink to the SPI (did Ckatz include this or was this a standard part of the tag?), suspected sockpuppets don't need a SPI. Considering that they edited wrt the exact same company, that the blocks came around the second edit from this SPA account (which was a mail to CKatz, the blocking admin), and that the blocked accounts include ones like User:Rajeev4uall, it looks to me to be a fairly clear WP:DUCK case, so I don't see why the tags should be removed. Socking and spamming should be fought against, not brushed under the carpet. Fram (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• The issue appears to be that User:Anoop4uall has a notice that "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts." It is easy to see why that suspicion occurred—this account made a single edit (Special:Contributions/Anoop4uall) in October 2009, then another edit to post "you've got mail" on user talk:Ckatz in February 2011. The issue appears to be based on AdvocateKhoj and its website, see the February 2011 blacklist discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• FYI - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdvocateKhoj. GiantSnowman 11:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your account isn't blocked and never has been. In 2009 you created the (perfectly valid} article AdvocateKhoj. Two years later some other accounts - Nikirai, Daddycoolboy, Abhishekraj12 and one similar to yours, Rajeev4uall - began spamming links to AdvocateKhoj into Indian legal articles. The admin Ckatz removed the spam and blocked these accounts as socks. It seems likely you were aware of this at the time, because your first and only interaction with Ckatz was to send them an email during the spam removal but before they tagged or blocked any of these spam accounts. Your email was also just before they tagged your userpage, and was your only edit in the 4-year period between 2009 and today.

Happy to believe you're not a sockmaster, and anyway the whole thing is ancient history. But I somehow doubt the claim that you just discovered all this today. Euryalus (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I had created this account so as to maintain the article AdvocateKhoj. However when it was blacklisted, I had shot an email to the admin who blacklisted it asking the reason for blacklisting. However, I never received any response. Since there was no purpose, I haven't logged in since... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So, we have established that you're not currently blocked. You have established that you created this account to maintain a specific article. It would be helpful to know which other accounts you have or have had - there are a few valid reasons for using alternate accounts ES&L 11:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How would a user who hasn't edited for nearly a year and a half be aware that a certain site was blacklisted only 1 1/2 hour after the blacklisting happened, and more than 1 hour before the blacklisting admin edited the article for the first time? Seems hard to explain without some socks being reverted (things like this edit). I may have failed to think about some believable explanation here, but until such an explanation is given, the sockpuppetry one is thge most logical one, meaning that the suspected sock tags should be restored and this section closed (with or without boomerang). Fram (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing any unlawful activity here... all I wanted was to maintain the article, hope u can understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I got to know about the blacklist as there was a traffic drop from my Google Analytics Account so wanted to know more and so shot an email to the blacklisting admin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"I had created this account so as to maintain the article ,AdvocateKhoj. when it was blacklisted, I had shot an email to the admin who blacklisted it asking the reason for blacklisting. However, I never received any response. Since there was no purpose, I haven't logged in since..."[1] - Anoop4uall, your userpage was tagged as a sockmaster 20 minutes after you emailed Ckatz. Are you seriously suggesting that having monitored Wikipedia for two entire years to "maintain the article" without making any edits at all, you suddenly notice an obscure blacklist entry mentioning it, email the admin concerned and then wait less than 20 minutes for an answer before logging out forever? If you had waited longer than that you would have noticed the sock template on your page in 2011 rather than in 2013 as you're now suggesting. Euryalus (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What might possibly have happened was that the user Anoop4uall might be in a blocked IP range. If the blocked IP range is wide enough, a user within the range can also be blocked from editing even if the user himself/herself is not individually blocked. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP clarified that he was not blocked, but received a message about blocked suspected sock accounts. The explanation of why these are not sock accounts is (to me) not convincing. I have accordingly restored the "suspected sock" tags to the blocked accounts (note that there some IPs active spamming as well which haven't been listed). Fram (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP has severe COI over the article in question. He may not have been socking; however he could well have been engaging in meatpuppetry. GiantSnowman 13:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are things here that are hard to believe. In 2009 Anoop4uall creates an article in a single edit, and then stops editing for 2 years. Fine. But then:

• In 2011 a collection of recent accounts spring up and start spamming external links to Anoop4uall's article subject. One of these spammer accounts coincidentally has a username very similar to Anoop4uall (that being Rajeev4uall);
• Despite Anoop4uall not having edited for two years, they immediately notice the reversion of the spammed links and send an email to the admin reverting the spam;
• Also despite not having made more than 1 edit in Wikipedia ever, Anoop4uall knows their way around enough to determine that the spammed links have been added to the blacklist and makes this (and not the spam reversion that led to it) the topic of their email. Even though the addition to the blacklist would not have affected Google Analytics as it is not retrospective (ie it doesn't remove all previous uses of that external link from Wikipedia). So the only believable way Anoop4uall could have known of the blacklisting would be if they or another account was also trying to spam the link at the same time as the socks, and had got the message that it was unable to be added.
• Despite claiming to have an abiding interest in maintaining the article and an immediate concern at a sudden drop in web traffic apparently caused by the realtime removal of spam links (not the blacklisting), Anoop4uall then doesn't wait for a reply to their email about blacklisting but logs off immediately and forever, thereby missing the adding of a sock template to their userpage.
• Despite knowing how to locate the spam-blacklist pages, watching the effect of their article and linkspam to it on Google Analytics, and monitoring the article itself on Wikipedia constantly over a two-year period, Anoop4uall is still enough of a newcomer to mistakenly believe their account is blocked. Presumably because they saw a block message when returning to Wikipedia in 2013. But where did they see it? Because the only blocked accounts are the socks who spammed the links in 2011.

This thread was opened as a query about why the account Anoop4uall was blocked. As the account is not blocked, I suggest we can close this section as resolved. On the wider topic of why there is a category of suspected socks here, its because there was clearly sock- or meatpuppetry going on, and the above points would make anyone credibly suspicious that Anoop4uall was either well aware or actually involved.

Either way, no action seems required. Anoop4uall, you're free to edit Wikipedia, and good luck to you with your future contributions. But I agree with Fram that the sock templates should be restored to the blocked accounts. They're sock or meat puppets of someone and the suspicions that led to the tagging are at least passably credible. Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That does not mean they are socks of Anoop4uall; as the editor made a single substantive edit before this ANI post, it's insane to conclude they are a sockmaster. To assert that is to assert there is a single individual in the world interested in promoting/spamming AdvocateKhoj. I don't care about the blocked accounts (and I doubt many other folks do, either), and if someone insists they be tagged with something, that's fine. But they should not be tagged "Anoop4uall" because the Wikipedia practice is (or at least used to be) you don't make accusations you can't back up with evidence. NE Ent 13:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Same single interest, similar names, and restarting editing at the exact same time, is not the same as "accusations you can't back up with evidence". Whether they are socks or meatpuppets is not relevant, there is plenty of evidence that they are editing together for the same spamming purposes, and should thus be tagged as socks of each other. Fram (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please file an spi per policy at WP:HSOCK then. NE Ent 09:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And what will happen at that SPI? "Investigations are conducted by an administrator, who will compare the accounts' behaviour and determine whether they are probably connected; this is a behavioural evidence investigation." Which is what I have done here. I don't think that burocracy for the sake of burocracy will help anyone. Checkuser won't work anyway, since the other accounts are stale, so all there is now is a behavioural investigation. That the investaigation was done here instead of at SPI is hardly relevant. Fram (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) It's what I have done here also. So we've had an SPI conducted here on AN/I. The blocked accounts are socks or meatpuppets. It is suspected (note: suspected, not confirmed) that Anoop4uall is involved in that sock- or meatpuppetry. That's why there's a tag on their userpage. But Anoop4uall is not blocked, so their query seem resolved. And no one is suggesting they be blocked, so there's no further action to be taken. NE Ent, I have no objection to your reopening this conversation to have an additional say, but now that that has occurred and we are all just restating our positions, I respectfully propose we let this thread pass into the ether. Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So, logically, Euryalus wasn't being truthful when you stated "Happy to believe you're not a sockmaster,"? or think it's okay to have accusation in place regardless of their belief in Anoop's innocence, or another possibility I'm missing? NE Ent 01:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the last of your options, the other posibility you're missing. The first comment was a (perhaps misplaced) assumption of good faith which predated both the detailed analysis of the issue by Fram and myself, and also Anoop4uall's own additional comments, which influenced my impression of their involvement in the issue. These points are all outlined elsewhere in this thread. Euryalus (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is only suspected and not confirmed, then the sockmaster tag needs to be removed per WP:HSOCK. NE Ent is correct on the policy for tagging socks. GregJackP Boomer! 11:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be contradictory or unclear instructions somewhere, I don't immediately see what you mean here. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Sock puppets (registered accounts), "If it's a WP:DUCK or case where CU was not involved or was not confirmed - Replace all content on the sock puppet's user page with {{sock|SockMaster|blocked}}." Isn't this exactly what has been done here? It's a WP:DUCK, not confirmed by CU (which wasn't involved and can't be involved by now anymore), so the accounts are tagged with the "sock" template, exactly according to the instructions. I see no indications there that any tags need to be removed (unless a SPI or similar determines that they are not socks or the master is incorrect of course). Fram (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:HSOCK states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). The so-called master was never blocked. The evidence is not sufficient for the master - there is absolutely no behavioral evidence that indicates Anoop4uall was a sockmaster other than the similarity of one name. The tag should be removed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But Anoop isn't tagged as a suspected wikipedia sockpuppet, but as a sockpuppeteer. Sockpuppeteers don't need necessarily to be blocked to be tagged nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous logic. GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Socks are blocked, the master account may or may not be blocked. I don't really care whether it remains tagged (as long as the socks stay tagged as such), but at least it served a purpose, i.e. make the editor aware that claims of him being a sockmaster were being made. I have seen in the past cases where some suspected socks were tagged, but the suspected sockmaster not tagged or warned in any way or shape, which means that he or she had no way of knowing about the accusation and couldn't defend or explain himself. Fram (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, you have first removed the sock templates from the blocked socks, and now, you have changed them to "unknown sockmaster", because there has been no SPI. As has been explained, an SPI is not needed, and the reason to have an SPI (to have an uninvolved admin confirm the DUCK suspicions) has been done here, in this very discussion. You may remain unconvinced, but claiming that there was no SPI is wikilawyering, and claiming that there was no evidence is not true. You may consider the evidence insufficient, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence of course. Please don't change the sock templates again. Fram (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ent's judgement on sock tags is not in line with practical application. It's annoying to say the least. GregJackP similarly knows diddly-squat about tagging, yet is here to back up Ent on the archaic wording of HSOCK that stupidly and inexplicably states that only blocked accounts may be tagged. I can't lay blame at either of their feet for this. Why can only blocked accounts be tagged? Why?! Can one user here adequately explain why only blocked accounts can be tagged without saying "Because it says so"? Doc talk 10:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Practically is not present here. These are 18 month old dead accounts we're taking about. This about whether we actually follow our AGF and treat others with respect pillar or not. NE Ent 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing is the unfinished encyclopedia, and we're in a state of decay vis-a-vis intake of new editors. Accusing folks of things without solid evidence in vigilante posses is just rude, and even if we're right 9 out of 10 ten times, the one out of ten times we're wrong we lose a potential editor which is far more important in the long run. These accounts were blocked because of spam insertion -- which was dealt with by the blacklist. But that wasn't good enough -- we had also block the accounts and accuse a congenial non-deceptive spa editor of being in collusion. ("obviously meatpuppets"). Might as well block all the MOS editors as meatpuppets by that reasoning. Neither the five blocked accounts nor Anoop4all nor mine matter in the long run -- but doing the same thing over and over again does... there are a quarter million {{unreferenced}} templates to deal with -- we should be welcoming and intaking editors by the thousands instead of driving off every confused newbie unable or unwilling to wade through the arcane mass of wp-this and wp-that to figure out how to survive their first three months. NE Ent 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fram you stated above "I don't really care whether it remains tagged," so why restore the template making the accusation? NE Ent 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I stated that I don't really care whether the sockpuppeteer tag remains on the active account. That doesn't mean that the category of his older socks should be emptied though, which is what you did. Apart from that, perhaps save your energy for a case really worth fighting for, e.g. a true newbie, not a four year old SPA editor who is clearly only interested in promoting and driving viewers to the company. If you want to change policies (i.e. that spammers which are also clearly meat- or sockpuppets should not be blocked if a blacklist may be sufficient), then take it to the appropriate discussion board. As for "vigilante posses", well, strictly speaking as an admin I am not "vigilante" here. You wanted an SPI, which requires an uninvolved admin to check the accounts and evidence and base their conclusion on these. This is exactly what I did, but "here" instead of at the SPI pages. If that makes this a "vigilante posse" (I don't see much of a posse though, people agreeing independently is hardly a posse), then so be it. It makes your speech about the pillars a lot less convincing though. Fram (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I also object to the "vigilante posse" notion. A crucial point that many seem to be missing is this: all tags ultimately must be backed with... solid evidence! The burden is firmly on the tagger; and if he or she cannot provide the necessary evidence for placing the tag, trouble will surely come their way. Instead of focusing on theoretical "taggee" victims, I feel we're better off applying greater AGF to those who tag accounts (and therefore must provide solid evidence for the tagging under the scrutiny that we all must adhere to). I don't buy the chasing off the newbies argument with the tagging procedure, but I respect your view. Doc talk 06:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute

I'm not a regular editor of Ludwig von Mises Institute, however, a content dispute was raised at WP:RSN[2]. The issue concerned a WP:BLOG that was being used as a source for third-party information regarding living people which, unless I'm missing something, is a clear violation of WP:SPS and WP:BLP. I waited about a half a day for someone to remove the BLP violation. Nobody did so. As an RSN contributor, I don't usually get involved in the disputes that get raised at RSN. However, given that this was a BLP issue, I decided to be WP:BOLD and removed the BLP violation[3] clearly identifying the reason for the removal in the edit summary: "Removed WP:BLP violation. We cannot use a blog as a source for third-party information about living people. See WP:SPS and discussion at WP:RSN for more information" I was instantly reverted.[4] Since this is a BLP violation, I undid the reversion.[5] I am now at 2RR for which I feel is a clear BLP violation. I detest edit-warring so I will stop at this point. But I invite other editors to examine my actions and request assistance/advice on how to proceed going forward. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Two RfCs I closed here and here are relevant to this situation. Editors who have insisted on keeping them in for any particular claim seem to only read into the bolded part of the close rather than the portion that refers to WP:SPS. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jethro. Actually this is a different issue, see here [6] Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is not the only editor to remove this particular item. Arzel (talk · contribs) removed the item here: [7] and North8000 (talk · contribs) removed it here: [8]. The first removal was reverted by SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) and the second by MilesMoney (talk · contribs) here: [9]. But what is particularly telling is MilesMoney's removal of a SPS tag here [10] while the particular item is under discussion. Specifico again removed the SPS tag [11] with the comment that tagging the particular item was a "belated protest tag". (This issue – the removal of discussion tags – has been raised before.) Rather than wait for discussions about controversial material to be resolved, these editors behave as if the discussions are going in their favor. Such is not the case. Rather, we see comments that do not consider the import of BLP in WP and which label edits as "‎Edit-warring under the guise of BLP" & "instead of skipping over consensus". (Other comments, by each side of the issue, are available at the RSN.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As helpful as Rich was, he sort of forgot that my edit comment explained why I removed the tag. The tag was for WP:SPS, but my comment read "newsblog not sps". This article has suffered from an inordinate amount of drive-by tagging, so I'm particularly sensitive to inaccurate tags, as well as ones that are not followed up on with a discussion.

After I restored what AQFK removed, I left them a note about their edit-warring, with the following additional comment:

"You do not have a BLP exception. There are editors questioning the reliability of the source, but they have not been successful at impeaching it. That's why they left a notice, as opposed to removing the material."

Just to be clear, the reason there's no BLP exception is that Ludwig von Mises Institute is not a biography of a living person or even a biography. The material that AQFK censored spoke of the entire institution without identifying any individual, living or otherwise. So while I share their concerns about WP:BLP violations, this cannot be one, and WP:BLP should not be used as a cover for edit-warring.

In their talk page response, AQFK demanded that I self-revert, which is impossible because they immediately reverted my edit. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder whether AQFK really understands what these policies are.

I'm going to politely ask that AQFK revert themselves and instead join the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Compared to BLP violations on a number of Austrian economics related articles, including actual BLPs, it is a minor violation of BLP. (See August 2013 WP:BLPN thread here.) However, it is quite typical of the edit warring behavior we have seen where one set of editors reverts concerns expressed by uninvolved editors who try to correct a problem, get reverted repeatedly, and are subjected to questionable arguments, and tag team editing. Soon enough the uninvolved editors, even those who bring issues to noticeboards, get fed up and leave.

Also, it should be noted that the Volokh Conspiracy website issue was brought to WP:RSN soon after I wrote I thought it was one of several that should be brought, all having NPOV implications. (Which to me does include BLP ones, since the article is replete with such poorly sourced negative comments written in such a way to reflect poorly upon anyone in the least associated with Ludwig von Mises Institute. Some such material also is then put into individuals BLPs, or inferred in a snide way when referring to their association with the Institute.) Since an editor jumped the gun and only brought Volokh Conspiracy to WP:RSN, I decided to share my other concerns in the thread directly below it, Wikipedia:RSN#Three_sources_on_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute_article. User:Carolmooredc 05:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, you called this a WP:BLP issue on WP:RSN and were corrected there, too. To remind you, it's not any sort of BLP issue. As for all the other stuff you're talking about, I don't see how it relates to this discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple editors have alleged a BLP violation over this on multiple forums, but there's absolutely no merit because, among other things, WP:BLP isn't even relevant. Let's please just shut this down already so we can get back to the job of editing Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies EVERYWHERE in WP. Talk pages, Bios, articles on cats. Defamation of character is probably the most serious issue that WP encounters. To claim that BLP cannot be relevant because the article is not a Bio shows a severe misunderstanding of the BLP policy. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, "The institute has a staff of 16 Senior Fellows and about 70 adjunct scholars from the United States and other countries." According to WP:BLPN, "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for more specific restatement of concern

There is no specific allegation made above. All I see is a broad, abstract restatement of policy. I ask that OP please specifically and concretely state how the relevant BLP policy was violated by the content s/he links to. Steeletrap (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• How is this an issue for ANI? It has been properly raised at RSN; it is also under discussion at BLPN. Unless there is some obvious need for admin action, the discussion here should be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth. Let's close this. MilesMoney (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is confusing. You cannot use a blog to accuse living people of being "racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists". The administrative action required is that any editor who continues to violate BLP either needs to be blocked or the article needs to be protected with the BLP violation omitted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note that this article is under newly established discretionary sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As the thread on BLPN involved the particular source (Volkh) already under discussion, I closed the BLP thread and provided a link to the RSN page. Yet another thread is open here. Perhaps WP:AN3 would have been a better place for it at the time. But the EW problem is now moot because of the general sanctions. I recommend that further comments, including BLP concerns, be posted on the RSN. (And I regret that I needlessly furthered the discussion here by adding my own comments.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977: As an involved editor, and with BLP concerns having been expressed in several places, including the RSN, it was inappropriate for you to close the BLPN thread. Please undo your close ASAP. If you choose not to do so, I ask any Admin please to do so. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statements about organizations "not normally" BLP statements

Per WP:BLPGROUP, "this policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal person" (which LvMI falls into). The only explicit exception they make to this rule is when an organization is very small. The Institute has nearly 100 associated scholars, hundreds of associated authors, dozens of other co-workers, and thousands and thousands of members/students who don't work there but support the Institute and are heavily involved in its activities. The Institute, with its global following an multi-million dollar endowment, is not by any reasonable definition a "very small" organization, and therefore BLP doesn't apply. (Apart from common sense, the best argument for this is that 1) organizations/corporations/other entities (e.g. non-profits like the Institute) are mostly exempt from BLP and 2) LvMI has a larger endowment, higher profile, greater membership, and bigger staff than the median (i.e. BLP exempt) organizations/companies/non-profit/legal entity. This entire thread is a category error and makes no sense because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP certainly DOES apply. Let's say John Doe is listed in an article about SmallBusiness, and he's still alive. In the article about SmallBusiness, someone says "the members of SmallBusiness sleep around on their wives, as per this blog". That, by first year logic a=b, and b=c, therefore a=c is a flat out BLP violation as it accuses John Doe of sleeping around on his wife. ES&L 17:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good example! And a number of people are named in the article. Also, something that needs clarifying is that most of the racism accusations like at Volokh Conspiracy site come from or refer to the 2008 period when Ron Paul newsletters were widely publicized and people were accusing Mises leader Lew Rockwell of doing them and Rockwell was saying someone else did and would not identify that person. Obviously, trying to make it look like these are ongoing contemporary accusations applying to everyone associated with Mises, when they are related to a historical brouhaha related to a couple people is problematic. I haven't even tried to fix that with proper framing, given that even getting rid of obvious WP:RS problems is an issue, it's not something I want to tussle with right now. User:Carolmooredc 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The example is confused, and another (logical) category error, because it relates to conduct that is necessarily personal (a person or persons engaged in physical acts with other people's spouses), not an abstract statement about the (in thie case, allegedly racist) ideoogical culture of the organization. WP:BLPGROUP, which indicates that statements about the large majority of organizations do not qualify as BLPs, must apply. The caveat to the generally rule is only meant to apply to those organizations (probably firms comprised of only a few (e.g. 1, 2 or 3 people) that are logically indistinct from individuals. By virtue of its 350 faculty members (1), multi-million dollar endowment, and tens of thousands-strong global membership, LvMI is certainly a logically distinct entity from any individual person. Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it's confused? If I say "the people at SmallBusiness are racist", it still meets a=c ... seriously, WTF. ES&L 18:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP does not apply because it is possible "to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." The LvMI has, according to its website, over 350 faculty members working with it, and thousands of donors in 50 states and 80 countries.[12] Individuals may join for as little as $50 per year. That does not include active members who have died or left. If we write about a rock band, then by implication we are writing about each and every member, but no one believes that every LvMI supporter participates in their day to day workings. This discussion belongs in the policy talk page, because as written the policy does not cover such large organizations. TFD (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up, but aren't debates about WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP supposed to be settled on WP:BLPN, not WP:ANI? This isn't even a hypothetical matter, because it was actually brought up on WP:BLPN before it came here, but Rich closed it down. From what I saw, it didn't look as if there was much support for the idea that it was a BLP violation.

I'm really unhappy with Rich about this because the matter was essentially settled until it leaked out onto this page and Rich shut down the original discussion before it could formally come to a conclusion. I view this as an abuse of non-admin closing, and I don't believe we should allow this on sanctioned articles.

I'm asking that an admin involved in enforcing sanctions look into Rich's actions, as linked to above, and rule on whether they are acceptable. If not, I would expect him to receive a formal warning, at the very least. MilesMoney (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:::@MilesMoney:You are not allowed to use a blog to making disparaging comments about living people. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Even if every person covered in the article were dead, it's still a violation of WP:SPS: you cannot use a blog as a source for third-parties. I am sorry if I am the first person to explain Wikipedia's policy about Wikipedia:V#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable, but this is simply not allowed. Period. I suggest that you take a step back and reflect upon this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But the disparaging comments are about an organization. Please discuss BLP issues on BLPN; I've re-opened that section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MilesMoney:You are not allowed to use a blog to making disparaging comments about living people. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Even if every person covered in the article were dead, it's still a violation of WP:SPS: you cannot use a blog as a source for third-parties. I am sorry if I am the first person to explain Wikipedia's policy about Wikipedia:V#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable, but this is simply not allowed. Period. I suggest that you take a step back and reflect upon this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This topic has been reopened on WP:BLPN. I see no reason to discuss it here any longer. MilesMoney (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If any editor continues to violate WP:BLP or WP:SPS, then admin action is required. Either such editors be blocked and/or topic-banned, or the article needs to be protected with the BLP violation removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Need definitive admin answer for similar issues at three notice boards?

The question as to whether Self-Published blog entries by knowledgeable but not necessarily expert people who make highly negative accusations with little real evidence can be used in this article is discussed at these three noticeboards [changed later to order listed; note by four different editors]:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Volokh_Conspiracy and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Three_sources_on_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute_article. 22:05, 25 October 2013 (Good overview of actual quotes and sources in question.)
• Wikipedia:BLPN#Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute 16:56, 26 October 2013
• Here, WP:ANI. 3:59, 27 October 2013

This issue has repeatedly been brought to noticeboards, usually regarding actual biographies, over the last six months (links available on request) and even though SPS usually have been shot down, the same editors keep defending doing this over and over. Is there someway to get a definitive answer or even add this issue to the Austrian economics community sanctions? User:Carolmooredc 19:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is already covered by WP:SPS. This is an exact quote:

“ Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people ”

There are no exceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: This has been quoted and argued repeatedly, but there's always some excuse... sigh... User:Carolmooredc 20:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)]

• Carol, your summary is not factual. In particular, people such as Callahan and Bernstein are not merely knowledgeable, but are published experts in the relevant field. Also, as AQFK's own quote shows, the prohibition against self-published sources only applies to WP:BLP and the LvMI is not a living person or a small organization, so WP:BLP does not cover it. MilesMoney (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If I have understood correctly, Bernstein is a professor of law, he is not a scholar of anti-semittism, racism or conspiracy theories. His statements about this is more his personal view (which may well be correct, but is not based on scholarship). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for MilesMoney based on accusations of tendentious editing

• Support Enough is enough. I support this topic ban for the violation of WP:BLP and WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Query. For which articles? For how long? - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave the specifics to the admins, but I would suggest a 30-day topic ban regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute broadly construed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support It is all but impossible to discuss this or any issue with him. His attempt to change what Rand Paul said regarding same-sex marriage is another good example. Going against consensus, BLP, and continuous TE during the entire process. Probably the biggest reason is that MM seems to have a severe misunderstanding regarding the basic aspects of BLP in that we cannot present our interpretation of what a person has said. Arzel (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support MilesMoney's hectoring tendentiousness and often wayward interpretations of policy etc suggest that a short break might be beneficial. The umpteen recurring issues on the articles will not go away but if a break gives MM a chance to calm down a bit and spend a little more time understanding our policies then that can only be A Good Thing. Although an unintentional consequence (ie: not a reason to block per se), such a restriction might also give some others involved in the subject area some pause for thought. - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Two weeks ago I drafted a listing of MM's te diffs. It ran for 80+ items, not counting those directed towards me. Eighty items = WP:TLDR, so I set it aside. Shall I post it? – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Please note: The listing of diffs I've got spans all sorts of topic, not just Mises.org. 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

MM's posts on user talk pages (comments and replies are all quoted remarks) posted by S. Rich

Date & Diff	User talk page edit count start date status	MM's comment Bold: = section heading posted by MM	User reply diff	User reply	Notes
Jul 23 [13]	Arzel 10k 2005 ---	Stalking: Dude, you look like you're making a habit of following me around and undoing what I write. Back off or I'll report you.	[14]	Dude, Those are pages which I have been following, perhaps you are stalking me. Work constructively with others.	---
Jul 28 [15]	StAnselm 92.5k 2007 ---	Untrue edit comment: Your edit comment for ... just wasn't true, so I put it all back. I'm gonna assume you made a mistake, this time. But if you keep it up, I'm gonna report you for lying.	---	---	---
Aug 27 [16]	RL0919 20.8k 2005 sysop	As far as I'm concerned, you're pretty much like that imaginary Bible-thumper: too biased and incompetent to contribute. Now, I can't stop you from taking this as an insult, but it's really all about your demonstrated behavior and ability, so it's not personal at all. I don't hate you, I just don't think your opinion about Ayn Rand can be trusted, so I can't give it any weight at all.	[17]	Omitted	---
Sep 10 [18]	Renren8123 eighteen Aug 15 ---	Renren, you've been warned before to stop making false accusations of vandalism. What do we need to do, block you?	---	---	Posted after a second edit had been reverted as "vandalism"
Sep 20 [19]	Binksternet 101k 2007 ---	Blinkersnet, the problem with being incompetent is that you aren't competent enough to realize your own shortcomings.... Hint: When lots of people say you're incompetent but you just don't see it, consider that maybe it's not a bizarre conspiracy against you, just a shared recognition of something about you that you can't see for yourself.	[20]	Reverted comment w/ edit summary "Take it somewhere else"	---
Sep 24 [21]	DagonAmigaOS thirty-eight Sep 11 ---	Tendentious editing: Please do not edit articles against policy. I'm talking about Ayn Rand.	[22]	One edit is not Tendentious editing, putting amateur is not neutral, it is POV, it should be left simple philosopher with no qualifiers which is more neutral than any other option i.e. trained philosopher as it is the case of Ayn Rand or Amateur as you claim.	---
Sep 26 [23]	Mark Arsten --- --- sysop	I'm actually not a big fan of the version you froze it to, ... We're flooded with these POV-pushers who are ignoring both policy and our sources.	---	---	Posted in response to PP; slightly modified in following edit.
Sep 27 [24]	Mark Arsten --- --- ---	I'd need to use the fingers of both hands to count up all the behavioral policies you just violated here, but the most basic problem is that what you said isn't accurate.	---	---	Posted in response to a comment by Arzel on same page.
Sep 27 [25]	198.228.217.149 N/A N/A N/A	A few things you did wrong on Objectivism (Ayn Rand): ... It's pretty obvious that you've been editing under multiple IP's in California. That's also frowned upon because it creates the illusion of multiple individuals agreeing. Consolidate your identity by creating an account....I'm not sure if I'm going to bother to roll back your changes, because there's a WP:3RR policy that could be used against me. If you're honest, you'll roll them back yourself.	---	---	---
Oct 6 [26]	Adjwilley 2k 2007 sysop	...In fact, the only reason I mentioned your name is that your witch-hunt SPI was brought up by your fellow admin [User:Orlady] to discredit my legitimate SPI against a pack of meatpuppets from Reddit. She brought you up, so "I put you down", but all I said is the simple truth. It's a fact that you have a track record of falsely accusing editors of being socks. You have only yourself to blame for that.	---	---	"my legitimate SPI" refers to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra; "witch-hunt SPI" refers to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247

This is one listing of diffs I complied re MM's behavior – limited to user talk page comments. (Other diffs on Noticeboards, advisories & warnings, and MM's opening of and SPI as to other editors is available.) With these diffs which simply involve interaction with individual members of the community, I propose that sanctions on MM extend beyond particular topics. – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose You all haven't even made your case for a violation here, in this one instance, yet (UPDATE: with the exception of Srich, who added the table) you are calling for a "topic ban" without any supporting diffs, or even, a warning for Miles' alleged "misconduct." This evidence-less "me-tooism" taking over the LvMI pages is highly disconcerting. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Cor blimey. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support MM has been an abrasive and accusatory presence on these articles. If we're to break through this long-standing conflict on these articles, this seems a good a place to start as any. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite ban for conservative and libertarian topics in the U.S. I noticed that he edit-warred and argued to call the possible U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz an immigrant from Canada ("he was 4 when he came to America, so he's obviously an immigrant").[27] TFD (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least a topic ban on libertarian topics, broadly construed. MilesMoney is only here to increase discord, not to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any basis for a topic ban or block, given what Wikipedia policy says. Occasionally making people unhappy is sometimes a foreseeable but unavoidable consequence of insisting that we follow the rules. However, it is not a punishable offense. It is not clear what I might have done that would justify removing me from Wikipedia. Given that I've never even been blocked, this would be akin to the death penalty for an alleged parking violation.

The strongest argument presented so far would be Rich's cherry-picked diffs, which show that I was a bit rough around the edges when I first started editing. Of course, as the lack of any recent diffs show, I've since learned to be civil. I know Rich has been holding on to those diffs for a while now. They were old when he collected them, and they're irrelevant now.

In any case, the goal of this ANI section is to discuss BLP violations, and it turns out that there weren't any. How this got changed into an attack eludes me. I would recommend closing this thread down because it's out of order; it's trolling. Instead, I open my talk page to anyone who wants to share their concerns with me one-on-one. If you're bashful, I also accept email. But this whole thing is counterproductive and is an affront to decency and policy alike. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're past the point where you can solve this with one to one conversations. Certainly everyone has a learning curve, and everyone has a bad day where they might snap at someone, and no one is going to blame you for any hostile remarks to at least one person on that list above, since he's hostile to everyone. But there's a pattern of hostility that clearly exists, and your refusal to even acknowledge the problem convinces me that this discussion here, whatever the outcome, is necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Miles' conduct in some of his early days here often violated policy. But that's really quite common for noobs, and he's made major strides since then. This really resembles a lynch mob more than anything else, and makes feel me discouraged about the community's capacity for fairness and evidence-based discourse. Steeletrap (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A fine example would be my recent encounter here, where I maintained decorum despite repeated personal attacks against me. This is all in the last day or so, so it's not ancient history. MilesMoney (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you were asked (rudely) to leave a user talk page, and instead you posted three more comments. A pertinent guideline says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So you agree that they were rude and I was polite, and that I've therefore proven my point about civility. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A lynch mob? Please don't be ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

MM, it is possible to be civil and still be tendentious, and to be civil yet still not understand policy. You're still doing it, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent point but a terrible example, since everything I said there was both civil and true. A much better one can be found here, where you threatened to get me blocked, right before you started stalking my edits on pages you've never shown any interest in before. With all due respect, you have admitted to holding a grudge against me, and this is not a sufficient reason for the community to block me. MilesMoney (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not true that I was presenting "a boogeyman being waved around to scare us into scrubbing the article of well-supported criticism". And yet, even a couple of minutes ago, you were persisting in WP:IDHT behaviour regarding the point. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've sworn to get me blocked, and are currently trying to do so, I suppose I can't expect you to be entirely objective. Still, anyone who looks can see that you brought up the threat of a wildly implausible lawsuit in an attempt to scare editors into compliance. MilesMoney (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - it's the only kind of editing s/he seems to do! Good work compiling evidence. User:Carolmooredc 03:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, given that you "rewrote" (your words) your own Wikipedia page (created by an anon IP originally, but effectively re-created by you) when you were a noob (1). Of your edits, you later said "I... rewrote a very POV/WP:OR peice as a newbie that was quickly reverted." I'm surprised that you are so critical of misconduct which occurred when a user was new to this community, and could not be reasonably expected to know all community policies. (Note to WP:Battleground-ing editors: before you erroneously accuse me of a personal attack, please note the logical difference between a factual assertion (namely that Carol created a wiki entry for herself as a noob) and a (by definition, subjective) ad hominem remark.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are engaging in irrelevant personal attacks. I explained my newbie mistakes at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination) (this diff) and did not argue to keep the article which I was happy to see deleted. The important point is: I was not so disruptive that articles I edited were constantly brought to noticeboards and that many editors complained about my editing on them. I myself didn't bring any issue to a noticeboard for probably 2.5 years after starting editing. I also have not been accused of being a sock puppet. So find a better defense for MilesMoney. User:Carolmooredc 05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're the only person to ever bring me to a noticeboard, and all your attempts have failed. That some of your efforts are now "succeeding" only reveals the ANI process as arbitrary. Even if you think there is rampant anti-LvMI bias, you still have to concede that they're arbitrary, since all of the previous efforts were ignored and dismissed by admins as content disputes. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Enough of the unsupported claims and personal attacks. Also note that my ANI complaint about talk page harassment did result in a warning to you here. This also is starting to feel like harassment. User:Carolmooredc 05:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: We are discussing the editing behavior of MilesMoney. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we're discussing a BLP issue, but you've had that table of cherry-picked diffs on hand for weeks now, and you've finally found a chance to use it against me. I don't think this is how collegial editing is supposed to work. MilesMoney (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Less than 21% of your edits have been on articles. The rest is talk page commentary. Indeed, it did take me a while to go through the comments. I believe the data I provided is accurate in every respect. E.g., the material is yours. However, comments about me were left out of my "cherry-picked" table, so it is incomplete. And I could have gone on and posted comments from the last 2 weeks. So, yes, the listing of 80+ diffs only tells part of the story. I will comment further: Your talk page has several reminders about civility, and you've "scrubbed" them with dismissive comments. Attempting to divert this subsection into a "discussing BLP" issue does not work. Repeating AQFK's opening comment "Enough is enough." – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to call your bluff on that one. I have been increasingly civil since I learned of the requirement, and have continued to be so even in the face of extreme provocation. As for talk page edits, that's a very good thing. It means that I'm discussing content instead of edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, can you explain why you pushed the view that Ted Cruz was an immigrant? In my view you are trying to popularize a "birther" myth about him. This is not the forum to start myths. And you are more interested in presenting negative views about libertarians with no concern about rs or weight, than with trying to write neutral articles about them. TFD (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was very clear on Cruz being an American citizen, so the birther comparison is a slur. However, I care very much about telling the whole truth, not just the pleasant part. We have plenty of sources that say he has dual Canadian citizenship and emigrated as a child. The fact that you want to block me for trying to put these reliable sources into the article is telling. The way you make it sound, this isn't about my behavior, it's about your objection to the content I support. Well, I support what our sources say, even when threatened and insulted. MilesMoney (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. For this edit alone, taking part in an edit war to restore BLP vios (even if the content is only a suspected BLP vio) is not on. Although the topic ban ought to be for all american political articles given what TFD has said and MM's tendentious editing on the BLP of Rand Paul. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to the long-running crusade/problems that this user has had. Some of the people attempting to defend them (Steeletrap) are clearly ignoring the numerous diffs that show how disruptive MM is. Trying to edit-war dodgy sources in to articles is bang out of order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Much as I agree with his political POV, MilesMoney is clearly POV-pushing, in addition to the incivility and battleground mentality. Neljack (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you feel the need to clarify your political agreements with Miles (presumably on gay marriage) is telling, as it implies that even you (an anti-Miles editor) implicitly acknowledge that political biases are or may be perceived to be a driving force of this ANI. Steeletrap (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I only mentioned my political agreement with Miles (on the Mises Institute - I don't know what his views are on gay marriage or why they are relevant) because it was apparent that there was an attempt to portray this as an ideologically-motivated witch-hunt. Neljack (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Admin note I received two good faith requests via email to let this run longer, so I've reversed my earlier closure.--v/r - TP 01:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment – From User talk:MilesMoney's "post-mortem", I'd say he's burned his bridges. (And this is not the first time that MilesMoney had unpleasant things to say about WP. See: [28].) Still, I'll respond to his calling my bluff, above. E.g., "I have been increasingly civil since I learned of the requirement, ...."

• MilesMoney learned of the requirement when PrairieKid (talk · contribs) posted a welcome message back in July [29]. Doesn't the welcome message say something about the WP:5PILLARS? (PrairieKid later removed the welcome in an expression of disgust [30].)
• A month later I posted a message about editor interaction here: [31].
• More talk page messages about EW and NPA were posted, and on 20 August MilesMoney said "I think we need to be very careful to stay civil while still being honest and direct. It's not that easy, and when I slip, I will apologize and correct myself, especially if it's pointed out." [32].
• An admin reminder from Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) about civility was posted in September here: [33].

In light of this history of early reminders about civility, can we really expect MilesMoney to reform? In light of MilesMoney's second "Fuck Wikipedia", do we moderate the topic ban? Or, as I would advocate, do we block him all together? – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all pages related to libertarianism or the Tea Party. I had hoped the general sanctions applied to several of his favored topics would work to reign in his behavior and push him in a better direction. However, his comments after the initial closing of this thread indicate that his behavior was undertaken with prior knowledge that it would create conflict and draw sanctions. (More on my view of those comments here.) In that context, it seems unlikely that he can contribute beneficially at all, and definitely not to subjects where he has already manifested negative behavior. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:RL0919, none of Miles' conduct contained in the diffs above occurred post-sanctions. Please correct your remarks by noting this. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell I did not make any claims that require correction. You seem to be inferring something that I didn't say. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977: If you are interested in sharing complete and unbiased evidence here, I think that your table should begin one step back and have a column for the diff to which MilesMoney was responding in your first column. That would be the least we would need to understand the context of MilesMoney's comments in the first diff. In addition, since you have studied all the details and circumstances surrounding the cited diffs, please provide a few sentences about how, in each case, they demonstrate serious offenses. Let there be no question You should demonstrate that you've presented the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The magic of diffs is that editors can go forward and back in the edit history to put comments in context. But to ask me to match MM's comments with the surrounding article edits, etc. is going too far. Perhaps you could do so, and thereby refute the negative import of MM's comments. (Good luck in that regard.) Defend your client with facts if you feel injustice is being done. MM is getting more than his "day in court". His peers have spoken, and are speaking still. But poor MilesMoney has not spoken up for himself, so I can see why you may not wish to put in the effort. – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This break has cooled things on the articles, and the BLP issue is turning out in MilesMoney's favor and against those who accused him of EW. With sanctions in place, there is little chance that Miles or any other editor could disrupt the article for long in the future. And nothing precludes any future ANI actions if warranted and supported by factual evidence rather than content disagreement and personal frustration. The table presented in this section provides no evidence to support a block, and its author has declined to discuss it. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - his tendentious editing on Ayn Rand prevented positive progress for weeks or months. Yworo (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reopening of the thread

We've just seen a lynchmob in action on this thread, and much to the credit of Admin TP, he has reopened the thread so that we can try to live up to the principles and ideals of the WP community. Those ideals include clear, accurate, and logical discussion of disputes so that the community can proceed to principled consensus. Instead, on the matter of the proposed topic ban for User:MilesMoney we saw a group of otherwise reasonable individuals come together in a flash mob of frustrated accusation to conduct a full-blown old-fashioned lynching of MilesMoney. It was off-topic for this thread. Only one editor even attempted to provide anything other than personal opinion, feeling, and accusation in support of this proposed ban. Is that what we want for WP community process? User Srich proudly shared his dossier on MilesMoney, but without any discussion or explanation of his rather dubious and spin-doctored yarn.

We already knew that there have been behavioral problems -- widespread -- at the Mises-related articles. In the long thread which recently ended, we decided to apply Community Sanctions to stop those abuses. That thread had more than its own share of personal attack, spin-doctoring, and disingenuous rhetoric by several participants who piously joined the lynch mob here two days later.

We all know that from time to time, these conflicts between BLP and EW/3RR arise on many articles. MilesMoney was not the one who originally inserted the Bernstein text, and he was not the only one to revert its removal. He engaged in good faith discussion of the issue on the talk and noticeboard pages. He's not the only one who rejects the BLP claim. If you review the BLPN and RSN threads, you'll see many good faith editors who support MM's analysis and reject the BLP claim.

Miles has a quick and sharp edge to some of his posts. On others he is startlingly clear and insightful. I can say the same of just about every editor who joined the lynchmob here. You often make capable and productive contributions, and sometimes you are snide, obstinate and reckless. Some of you have impressive block records to prove it.

If there is to be an ANI concerning MilesMoney's behavior it should be a well-formulated complaint with a clear description of the complaint and supported by diffs which match the allegations and complaints. That's a core principle of WP process.

The subsection about Miles should be hatted and closed. The original BLP issue should be resolved. My personal view is that the EW/BLP-reverts have stopped and that the content issues are progressing satisfactorily on the content board, so that thread also can be closed at this time. If any of the editors on the ban-Miles thread wishes to open a separate, well formed ANI complaint against Miles they should do so. I don't think this is warranted at this time. Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

This last comment is completely off topic. Moreover, I did not receive a "warning". I received a notice in which Mark Arsten said "I think it might have been inappropriate for you to close that discussion." I do not protest that notification; but, inserting it here, characterized as a "warning", is inappropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977: - Hello Srich32977. Here it is, in case you were not aware. This is the formal record pursuant to Community Sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"In case you were not aware"? Duh, I quoted Mark's message. Why do you insist on harping on this point? "S.Rich received a message and MilesMoney did not, therefore MilesMoney should be exonerated." Is that your argument? – S. Rich (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you were not aware that it was a formal notice under Sanctions and not just an ordinary course communication. No need for you to get your blood pressure up. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Close the Miles sections of this ANI with no action.

• Support - If editors wish to open a separate and well documented complaint, that is of course their right. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: BLP claims verifiably false I'm going to have to mull over your request, SPECIFICO, esp. in light of my suggestion below. However, I do have to note that the BLP charges for which Miles was accused of vandalism are verifiably false. In short, User:Arzel claims Miles added an edit which misrepresented the remarks of Professor Bernstein. However, I emailed Professor Bernstein and he said the remarks (added by me originally and reverted by Miles) did not misrepresent him. Case closed (I am happy to forward the email to the admin). I know consensus is supposed to determine these things, but consensus based on a verifiably false premise can't be worth anything. Steeletrap (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I provided an example or two of continuing problems and there was at the time an entire thread visible here that included various links etc on the general LvMI subject. This request for re-opening seems itself to border on being an example of the tendentious type of behaviour that has become such a problem in the area of WP. I'm not even sure that I want to even get involved in !voting again as it will likely only encourage further examples.

  Specifico, you have had comments about your own issues in this regard (eg: here and here) and, like MilesMoney, you exercised your right to ban someone from your talk page, as here. (MM had banned four people - me, Srich, MrX and Adjwilley). Despite not wanting to interact with said people on your talk pages, both of you have been happy to interact with them on their talk pages, which seems like a case of double-standards. Please also bear in mind since the original closure of this thread, MilesMoney cleared their talk page and posted some philosophical meanderings that seem to border on indicating that they saw their involvement in Wikipedia as an experiment in how far they could go/how the community would react - they were always pushing the boundaries and admit that they stayed around "exactly two weeks longer than [their] initial estimate". As with anywhere else in the world, if you go looking for trouble then you'll quite likely find it. - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Specifico claims above that MilesMoney was not warned of the sanctions. MilesMoney took part in the discussion that gave rise to the general sanctions, which was archived only hours ago. They'd also been warned of sanctions on the related Ayn Rand subject and have had umpteen other warnings and advisory comments. Pages such as the LvMI talk have also had the GS template in place. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: - Excuse me, Sitush. Where did I state that MilesMoney was not warned of the Sanctions? Diff, please. Unfortunately, and WP's Founding Principles to the contrary notwithstanding, it appears that unfounded assertions are too often accepted as fact. Please provide a diff, or correct and revise your statement about me. This kind of disregard for verification of evidence and "fact" is another example as to why Due Process demands we close this and open a properly constituted thread concerning MilesMoney. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You said Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far in your opening comment above, where it seems that you also misrepresented what had happened to Srich (at least, you did according to Srich - I haven't checked it). - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. As the context should have made clear, my point was not that MilesMoney was unaware of the Sanctions. It was, instead, that no Admin had issued a warning/notice to MilesMoney per the Sanctions for any behavior which would -- if continued -- have warranted a ban. I will try to be more clear in the future. Srich did receive such a warning/notice, despite his denial, and it can be seen on the log for the Sanctions. You would also know that if you had brought yourself up to date reading this ANI thread, before accusing me of misrepresenting the matter. While you're here, why not check out Srich's table which purports to be evidence and look at the context and substance of the entire diffs. I suspect that most people, when looking at that table, would think that it was Miles who is accused of the acts written in bold type in the second column. The table gives a very different impression after one invests the time to read and research the underlying data. It's unfortunate that the editor who posted the table gave no narrative or explanation as to the meaning he was intending to assert and how it was supported by his table. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You can be as specious as you wish, Specifico. It is often the way of people who are righteous but lacking a leg to stand on. As I recall, you were opposing the sanctions at one point even though you admitted to not knowing how they worked/what such things were. (I'll find the diff if you want). It seems that you're still a bit off-kilter: please note that no general sanctions regime is required in order to propose/implement a topic ban at ANI. Anyone can be topic banned at any time if the consensus is in favour of that. I've no idea what the Srich table said and nor am I particularly interested: I'd seen enough tendentiousness to form my own opinion and I gave an example of it. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I am afraid that, from the evidence presented above, MilesMoney shows every sign of being a POV-warrior who is unable to edit neutrally and collaboratively in this area. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The one good thing about MilesMoney was he ticked off so many people that he brought them to articles like Mises Institute to see the policy-violating editing being done and supported by the couple editors who he worked with to add huge amounts of negative material to a series of articles - mostly BLPS - of individuals involved, even loosely, with the iInstitute. Nevertheless, such disruptive editing just drives people away from Wikipedia - I'm now only very reluctantly involved at all, and mostly to deal with these serious editing issues. Editors knowing they can work together to tarnish reputations along a whole spectrum of articles by adding poorly sourced POV smear material based on the flimsiest of evidence is a great way to turn Wikipedia into the National Enquirer. That's why WP:BLP reads: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. User:Carolmooredc 14:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to all editors and Admins Fellow editors on this board, per WP community norms, who will join me in asking Carolmooredc to provide documented evidence of these alleged BLP violations by the accused MilesMoney? @Carolmooredc: Please document MilesMoney's BLP violations and "huge amounts of negative material" which you assert. I expect my fellow editors, per WP due process, to require diffs to support the above statement concerning alleged BLP abuse by MilesMoney. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My, my. With all the other generalized comments without diffs that have been posted above, I find it interesting that you single out me for a specific request. Have something else to do right now, but by end of day shall easily find a few where either he does it or he vehemently supports another editor doing it (including reverts). It will be my pleasure. (Unless an admin says it's unnecessary, of course.) User:Carolmooredc 14:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Carolmooredc: - I am not singling you out, Carolmooredc. In my first statement above I called for the closing of this ANI due to my observation that most of the assembled editors commented without diffs or documentation. That is why I view this thread as a lynching and call for closure so that a proper thread can be opened according to due process. If the credibility of WP process is undermined by failure to adhere to what amounts to WP's Bill of Rights, then the stature of WP as a whole is degraded. I suspect that you share my concern for civil liberties, due process, and the rights of even the despicable accused, so I ask you to join me in calling for a fresh thread here and closure/abandonment of the current ANI. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Since MilesMoney seems to have accepted the ban, I've only spent 40 minutes finding a few of the examples of questionable BLP activity, more with talk page discussion headers than diffs. These only go back to Sept 30 when the "newbie" issue less relevant. In short, MilesMoney supports using poor sources to push a negative POV against certain libertarians and Austrian economists (including within articles about their organizations), working with two other editors who do the same.

• As Binksternet wrote during the Ludwig von Mises Institute discussion here MilesMoney antics distracted from the POV editing of two other editors who “show certain parties in a positive light, and just as slowly but surely highlights the negative.” I personally think his antics helped support their POV edits.
• The Mises Institute is a cult section supports using dubious refs to make the point that critics have compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult. (Many named individuals are in the article.) More discussion of Institute as a cult here. (MilesMoney edit warring with other editors on this issue led to protection of the article.)
• In current WP:RSN discussions on 1) Volokh Conspiracy and 2) three other dubious sources, MilesMoney supports questionable sources which attack both the institute and its members (also supported primarily by the two editors he usually agrees with).
• Support for using non-WP:RS to make a negative claim in a bio that led to this discussion: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Matt_Bruenig_.26_Demos. MilesMoney edit which adds unsourced info about media credentials to back up his contention a source should be used.
• Defense of sources several editors find questionable on Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#Posting_Issues_with_Citations.2C_before_starting_another_Edit_war
  

Other non-libertarian BLP issues:

• This inaccurate claim that led to this discussion: Ted Cruz' Canadian birth .
• Snotty comment about subject of a BLP (a physicist who philosophizes.)

Not a perfect list, but since SPECIFICO seemed so anxious for it... User:Carolmooredc 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But @Carolmooredc: Those are BLP issues only either in your own mind or allegations of BLP issues, later rejected, which various editors have used to suppress well-sourced article content. The Bernstein blog which is ostensibly the subject of this ANI is a recent case in point. The BLP claim has been scrutinized and is no longer finding any support. Somehow, nonetheless in your mind even wrongful accusations -- of BLP abuse, sockpuppetry, or anything else -- live on as settled fact which you can cite to mislead others too naive to doubt your word or too busy to check the facts. Any newcomers to Carolmoore's style on these ANIs can review the recent von Mieses Institute ANI of last week or for another great example, the ANI she brought against me around July 1 which was on its way to a WP:BOOMERANG block for Carolmooredc until she ended the mess by voluntarily declaring she'd stop editing the affected articles. I know of very few experienced editors who take your statements at face value, Carol. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Bernstein - pretty much dismissed at RSN here - is not even in Ludwig von Mises Institute any more. Show me the diffs of the other accusations, as I showed you mine... Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"pretty much dismissed"? The response to the RSN has been mixed; there is no consensus yet. It's out of the article because the "biased" users who support its addition are content to wait out the process. Steeletrap (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I struck Volokh Conspiracy from listing above since saw he didn't comment there. First, it's clear that most editors at WP:RSN do agree it's undue weight and on those grounds should be removed. People mentioned SPS a couple times as well and lack of expertise. It still looks like an unedited, negative personal opinion blog entry. I don't see any ref that he's a "libertarian" or an expert on the topic in his article bio. User:Carolmooredc 13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, that's another misrepresentation. Any editor who wishes to verify that Carol has misrepresented that thread can read it. Of course that's a huge expenditure of time which should be unnecessary if we knew we could rely on Carolmooredc's statements. Editors of many stripes at the RSN thread have distinguished between the Weight issue and the RS issue, the current inclination being that it is indeed RS but may still be Undue, and editors are preparing to take the weight issue to the article talk page. Carolmooredc, if you ask me, your stream of misrepresentation, personal invective, and fantasy is the very essence of tendentious editing. It confuses rational WP process and wastes huge amounts of editor and Admin resources. In fact, from a purely strategic point of view, I can see why this passive-aggressive kind of obstruction could be effective. Most editors will not waste their time verifying piles and piles of garbled assertions and links to off-topic half truth and misrepresented narrative. Editors who care to invest (waste) some time in verifying my statement can look up and read the voluminous files of carolmooredc's failed Noticeboard filings over the past six months. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

People can interpret things differently, obviously. I think your main problem with me is a produce too many diffs... User:Carolmooredc 14:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, his tendentious editing on Ayn Rand prevented reasonable progress on that article for weeks or even months. Yworo (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No new evidence has been presented to require re-opening the thread. TFD (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. The thread has already been reopened. The close and block were undone. The proposal I made was to WP:BLOWITUP and start over with a clearly stated and documented ANI against Miles if any editor chooses to file one. This thread is long on accusation and anger and short on evidence or policy-based discussion of an appropriate remedy. I have seen a few snippy posts MilesMoney made to you. I've also seen much good substantive discussion and collaboration with you. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, trout SPECIFICO for the ludicrous attempts to allow MilesMoney to continue to be abusive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles' response to diffs

Preamble: I think User Miles should have the opportunity to respond to some or all of the diffs Srich provides, and I request he do in the place I've provided below. I simply don't see what would be the harm in allowing him to do so, even if it takes a few days to a week. The right to be heard is a pretty important component of any legitimate disciplinary hearing, and he hasn't yet had the chance to respond to Rich's (extremely extensive) post. Without looking at them all, it appears to me that some of the diffs Rich posts (most to all of which appear to be drawn from when Miles was a noob, and could not be expected to know all the policies) constitute policy violations, but others (particularly within the last couple months, when he was no longer a noob) do not. To prevent the possibility that they are being quoted out of context, Miles should have the opportunity to contextualize his remarks. If, for instance, one of his "PA"s came in response to a PA being leveled at him, while his response may have been inappropriate, it is certainly much more understandable than an unprovoked remark. I already see that one remark appears to have been lifted out of context (from 9/27), insofar as it was directed at a user who was engaged in disruptive editing, rather than a user who simply disagreed with Miles. Miles should also have the opportunity to provide a general response to the allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If MM wants to post then they can. Inserting yet another section, as you have here, is pretty typical of how this entire Austrian Economics mess has become so convoluted. People seem to be using a plethora of section headings etc almost as a way of making point-y comments. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

... A MilesMoney example of which can be seen here. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney was kind enough to post a link to an old sandbox page on which I was working. Doing so saved me the "embarrassment" of posting the 80+diff TLDR table above. But MilesMoney' linking served to show that he was aware of what might have come about if he had protested too much. It is not pertinent (or fair) to suggest that my draft (unposted) had anything out of context. (After all, the magic of diffs is that editors can look at the before and after threads.) Still, if anything – anything – on my listing (posted or unposted) is unfair or inappropriate, I invite editors to contact me on my talk page and point out errors, etc. I've made mistakes before, and I've owned up to mistakes when I was wrong. So I will make changes as appropriate. But given the overall theme of MilesMoney's participation in the project, I do not think changes to my diff listings will make much difference. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles' remarks

To the best of my understanding, this entire sub-report about a topic ban is out of order; it is in violation of Wikipedia policy. As such, the correct response by admins is to close without action. This does not prevent anyone from deciding to follow the rules and open a legitimate report against me, but this report is not legitimate.

If no admin is willing to abort this sub-report, then I will defend myself. Otherwise, anything I say in my own defense now would only add legitimacy to the illegitimate. MilesMoney (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User discussion

MilesMoney has responded to the block on his talk page. Wikipedia editors are "are increasingly inbred and crazed." They "lie, scheme and cheat to get their way." "The worst part of Wikipedia is not how it provides a safe home for anti-social misfits, or scares away experts and academics, but how it twists the behavior of the relatively sane to turn them into zealots."[34] Editors can read the posting which contains more of the same. MilesMoney is not willing to edit cooperatively. The expression "inbred" is extremely insulting. He has the ability, but a break from editing may persuade him of the necessity. TFD (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The language, while harsh, was not directed to a specific user (thus, no PA occured). Moreover, it was provoked by a frankly premature and unfair closure of the ANI. Perhaps recognizing the problem with the closure, the admin has re-opened the ANI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

Note, I reopened the case because I received two good faith requests to do so; one of them being from you. There was nothing premature or unfair about it. Please do not infer my reasoning for reopening it, especially when I specifically told you via email what that reasoning was. Insulting me after I did you a favor is frankly rude.--v/r - TP 13:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD didn't say that it was a PA. You are deflecting. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney's comments make me think that an indefinite block or ban would be more appropriate. As with the Ted Cruz article, he is likely to take his tendentious editing to other areas. TFD (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has responded to the reopening. See [35]. – S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume that the reopening means a chance for MilesMoney to make a constructive comment and for other individuals who have not commented to do so. Not that it means previous comments will be ignored; probably not all previous posters saw the reopening or are not watching ANI now. (I thought at first Specifico had done it himself and had to search around for verification it was legit.)

Anyway, seeing others have chimed in yet again (even if they did forget to sign), I did so too, with a slightly different perspective than previously stated. User:Carolmooredc 14:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to your point, Carolmooredc, what is at stake here is much more than the future of User:MilesMoney. It's much larger. It's whether we as a community uphold the founding principles and ideals of WP. Due process and rational evidence-based consensus are core founding values must be upheld. @Carolmooredc: you have reminded us so many times of your commitment to WP that I hope you will join me in supporting closure of this thread, with the understanding that any editor may open an ANI against miles with a clearly stated, fully documented grievance and proposed remedy. As a libertarian I would hope your dedication to the rights of the accused would compel you to give this defendant his day in court according to our Founding Principles. We need to WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A founding principle, often abrogated by US Govt, is freedom of contract. When you edit wikipedia to enter into a contract to work within a community consensus process, as imperfect as it may be. And one of those consensus is if people bring one issue to an ANI and a related on pops up and a proposal is made within that ANI that Admins can act on that proposal. That is what is happening. Whether it was closed a day or two ago or will be closed in a day or two more, I think the outcome will be the same since MilesMoney has angered so many people. But more one the details later. Must run out now. User:Carolmooredc 14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The "defendant" has, in effect, confessed with this edit. He indicates that he expected to draw some type of sanction before he even started editing: "I came here to see just how little good I could do before I was attacked and finally shut down", which happened in "104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate." He looks down upon other editors with "pity and disgust". We are "otakus", "inbred and crazed", "incompetents and sociopaths", etc. I didn't chime in to support this topic ban proposal before, despite having witnessed and having been the target of his hostilities. I thought perhaps the sanctions already applied to many of the topics where he was editing would work to reign him in and channel him to more productive behavior. Now, however, any assumption of good faith is shattered by his own admissions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RL, do you really wish to assert that a person attacked by a lynchmob who expresses anger and contempt for the lynchmob is thereby validating its actions? This sounds like the Salem witch trials. BTW, I was quite surprised to see that MilesMoney posted some links to third party examination of the WP community which supported some of his views -- not that you and I agree with those views. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, your continued references to "lynchmob" etc are putting you on very thin ice here. You may not like the outcome and (presumably) you & Steeletrap convinced TParis to revert the closure pending further discussion, but repeated accusations of this type are not helpful. People have provided diffs, people have seen the past ANI threads and links thereto etc, and we have WP:CONSENSUS. Since Milesmoney has both shot themselves in the foot with their "post mortem" and then indicated that they have no intention of participating in this thread or even recognising the validity of it, I really don't see much point in prolonging this agony. At best, it is going to achieve nothing (MM has made his mind up); at worst, someone else is going to be sanctioned for PA, tendentiousness or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Milesmoney's conduct has defined tendentious editing. As far as I've seen, there are two Editors he gets along with, Specifico and Steeletrap. Everyone else, well, it depends on whether or not he agrees with their political stance. Abrasiveness seems to be tolerated in long-time Editors who make valuable contributions to article space. But Miles spends most (80%) of his edits on Talk Pages and Wiki-related pages like AN/I. Of course, that is not grounds for any kind of block or ban in itself, it just indicates that he seems to spend a fair amount of time and effort arguing.

That said, I wish MM would come to AN/I to discuss this rather than throwing in the towel as I read on User talk:MilesMoney#Post mortem. His behavior has alienated some Editors but if he could address his conduct, rather than characterize this discussion as a "lynching", something constructive might come out of this. As far as I've seen, Editors are not trying to drive him off WP, just get him to moderate his behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Liz, reread the above discussions. Users are calling for a permanent topic ban, despite the fact that Miles has never been subject to any disciplinary action before. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, with the Sanctions now in place. It would be an airtight solution to issue a short ban or General Sanctions Notice to any editor on these articles, with the threat of Admin action upon any misdemeanor after return. Anything beyond that is punitive and as we know the purpose of bans on WP is remedial not punitive. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get along with Miles but I think a topic ban of "Libertarianism" and all related topics is far too broad. By the way, this is exactly what I was concerned about when everyone voted for discretionary sanctions. I think that's all I'm going to say about that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is even more problematic. With Sanctions, there's a clear notice before block and there's an uninvolved Admin taking responsibility for the block. Nobody particularly got along with Miles, but I'm very surprised to see the WP community apparently willing to take vengeance on an editor merely for reasoned advocacy (even if strident, it was reasoned) of good faith views. The Bernstein blog source turned out to be a false issue, and I don't see anyone calling for the necks of those who erroneously called it a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An editor's antics can keep editors new to his editing so busy on talk pages and noticeboards trying to reason with him, that they don't jump straight to WP:ANI. But when they discover there is a related ANI and a lot of people are chiming in with horror stories, the consensus may become "topic ban this individual". (The fact these supporters of banning haven't all come back for the re-opening should not reduce the merit of their earlier words; it was not widely announced or people were just burned out. Mostly his two friendly advocates keep posting here over and over again, plus a couple more optimistic souls.)

His attitude about being topic banned was that of someone whose been there, done that before. He wrote on this talk page that his ban was after "104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate" and "it was over before it began." Frankly I wonder if he is a sock puppet of StillStanding-247 -(See this Sockpuppet investigation) - who went through a number of processes to adjust to Wikipolicy, before admins gave up and banned him. There is solid evidence presented on the SPI page, even if the admin refused to do a check user - and StillStanding seemed sophisticated enough to get around it anyway.

In any case, I predict if MilesMoney is unbanned, we'll have more people coming more quickly to ANI to complain about his antics and yet another ban. User:Carolmooredc 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc:, you often remind us of your abiding dedication to the betterment of WP. It's hard for me to believe that your off-topic ruminations and incessant repetition of rejected claims and accusations are the kind of conduct which strengthens this community. By the way, I don't think you get it. MilesMoney has not been banned. This thread is open. But to address your speculations: IF @MilesMoney: were to roam free, and IF he behaves tendentiously or "abuses BLP and SPS" or whatever else has been hoisted up the pole here, then an Admin will give him a swift GS notice. And if MilesMoney breaches that notice/warning, he will vanish -- fulfilling your fondest hopes. That doesn't seem like a big risk to me, when compared with the alternative of killing off a knowledgeable, able, and occasionally snide contributor on account of lots of folks don't like him. If any of the many Admins with their eye on the Mises article had thought Miles' behavior was the violation asserted here by OP, then that Admin would have issued a warning notice to MilesMoney on the spot. But none of the watchful Admins saw the need for that. Hmmm... SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I've defended two Editors I thought were unfairly indefinitely blocked. It didn't matter that I didn't agree with either of the users, I criticized the process. It seems like there are times when there is a general feeling among regulars who pay attention to noticeboard discussions that a troublesome Editor needs some kind of block to call attention to their disruptive behavior. Then, someone who is fed up comes to the noticeboard with some example of misbehavior or a violation of the rules. It can take several times for an Editor to be brought up on a noticeboard before it is followed up by a block. But there comes a point where there are more annoyed Editors and Admins than defenders, the evidence against the Editor has grown and a block is imposed. And it seems like because the annoyance is higher than normal, AN/I blocks seem to be harsher than normal blocks, and warnings are often bypassed because action on AN/I moves swiftly (sometimes in a matter of hours, not days).

I will say that I admire you, or anyone, sticking up for an Editor based on a belief that a block was unfairly harsh or long. But I can say from experience that some will attack you for doing this. Defending an Editor that the community is fed up with will not make you popular. Going against the tide has its costs. Just thought I should give you a head's up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, the respect is mutual. I hope it's clear that MilesMoney, whoever (s)he is, means nothing to me. Just a bunch of particularly agitated electrons on my screen. What matters, though is how very disappointed I am to see that the longtime editors and Admins who watch these boards care so little about keeping the ANI threads on some kind of even keel of policy, fact-based discourse, and civility. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

since we're talking in general terms about defending the - undefendable?? :-)...I'll have to look for SPECIFICO's defenses of topic or banned editors Xerographica and Byelf2007 who who worked on Austrian economics articles earlier this year. Of course, defending one's compatriot in arms is only self-defense... User:Carolmooredc 02:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an old ACLU type, it's tru. Now, who will defend you one day? That's interesting to consider. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I expect SPECIFICO's ACLU background, support of free speech and general commitment to libertarianism is what animates him/her to improve these articles. Many supposed supporters of LvMI want to censor their (RS-covered) views, whether it's Lew's AIDS Denial; Ron Paul's creationism; Rothbard's skepticism of evolution, support of torturing criminal suspects, opposition to MLK, promotion of Holocaust denying "historians", and support for letting children starve to death; Hoppe's support for "physically removing" the "habitual advocates of homosexuality" from society; and Gary North's support for stoning gays to death. We oppose censorship and believe these men are entitled to express their views in the public square. Steeletrap (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Steeletrap's comments above betray his hostility to these people, which MilesMoney more obnoxiously supports, adding his own disruptive style. Steeletrap only writes on these topics which he evidently spends hours researching; often presents WP:Self-published blog entries and we have to keep going back to WP:RSN again and again about them; presents the material in a usually biased and exaggerated way, with big section headers for even minor faux pas and sentence after sentence describing them. No matter how many times I have quoted WP:BLP on NPOV and balance and "not a tabloid", he ignores it. He and SPECIFICO (and doubtless MilesMoney) also remove perfectly WP:RS neutral factual material on the flimsiest of excuses, which has been discussed over and over on various article talk pages like Murray Rothbard and Jesus Huerta de Soto. Between dealing with the WP:Undue material and non-RS added and fighting over the neutral material deleted, the articles become WP:Attack pieces. User:Carolmooredc 13:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC) |

Carol, please strike your false assertions from the text (e.g. that I only write on these topics, when I've made hundreds of edits to non-Mises related pages). The above are illustrations of the views of these scholars, which are not attacks, but constitute factual information about their fringe views. When RS cover their fringe views, I've inserted them. Before I came here, the articles were typically hagiographies (Most of the ones I've encountered were largely written by an employee of the Mises Institute, and at least one was self-authored) which omitted the controversial views and associations of the authors. You should be happy that's changed, per WP:NPOV. But I don't think you're too concerned about neutrality, given that you ignored the massive problems with these articles for years. You're instead concerned with presenting Mises scholars positively, which is not the point of Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, you have been told previously that I prefer to be referred to by the female pronoun. Typically I would of course accord this sort of thing a good faith assumption, but given your prior remarks about my self-identification (e.g. replying to a post where I identify as a (trans) female by linking to an essay which says m-f trans people cannnot be female), I feel no obligation to do so. Please modify your remarks accordingly. Steeletrap (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert:After SPECIFICO harassment on my talk page about this issue, I just noticed this note. All I remember is Steeletrap comments about being transgender (which swings both ways) and one comment supporting Wikipedia downplaying Bill Clinton's sexual attacks on women as a mere public image problem by proclaiming being a proud woman. That could mean they are a proud female now who intends to be a proud male later, or vice versa. So please don't make statements you cannot support. User:Carolmooredc 16:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you're just not telling the truth. I or other users have said to you on numerous occasions that I identify as a woman. You responded in one case to my self-identification as a woman (1) by linking to womyn born womyn, a page devoted to the proposition that transgender women aren't women (and that only those assigned the female gender at birth are). Every WP users is entitled hold intolerant views, but in this context you clearly intended to personalize them, which is unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder – this portion of the discussion is regarding MilesMoney and whether the topic ban on MM should be modified. Unsigned by Srich32977 02:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Correction - Srich, you know perfectly well that there is no topic ban on MM. This thread has not been closed. Please strike that comment, which is false and prejudicial. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Let the admin comment on whether it is modified or withdrawn for now. Not clear to me.

In any case, the bottom line is SRich presented a whole chart above of bad behavior by MilesMoney; a few other editor, including myself, added more diffs and links; editors have been topic banned for so much less. The constant carping accusations of two editors who work closely with MilesMoney should not be allowed to twist the process, especially when, IMHO, these editors actually rely on MilesMoneys antics to distract people from their own questionable edits and even to drive NPOV editors off articles. Carping in response to carping... User:Carolmooredc 13:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Have you followed the alleged misbehavior listed in Srich32977's table? If so, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how, for each line, this documents misbehavior by MilesMoney. For example, we see the text stalking in bold in line 1. Do you think that means MilesMoney was stalking? If so, you didn't read the links. It turns out that Arzel was stalking Miles and Miles asked him to stop. Similarly we see other words (disingenuously? -- shouting?) bolded by Srich but it turns out that those are words which Miles is using and not acts which MilesMoney is committing. So, carolmooredc, please refer to the table and explain to the group here how and why you believe that this table demonstrates serious offenses by User:Milesmoney. Let's uphold the Founding Principles of WP and, if action is to be taken, dedicate ourselves to evidence-based and rational decisions. We must not act from casual judgment and personal frustration. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You can feel free to debunk accusations against your comrade in arms anywhere you please in this ANI. I've more than adequately had my say. User:Carolmooredc 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Admin note I've completely withdrawn the close and topic ban. I continue to consider myself uninvolved, however. I agree that a new admin closing it would be preferred, but I'm not opposed to determining what the current consensus is if someone requests the thread to be closed.--v/r - TP 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert to TParis]Requested formally here. Hope that helps. User:Carolmooredc 14:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert]Closure would be premature at this time, as there is ongoing discussion. MilesMoney has not edited articles during this ANI, and there is nothing to be gained from hasty closure at the expense of consensus resolution -- which we most certainly and evidently do not have at this time. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Two points – One: the bold typeface in the table simply reflects the various section headings that MilesMoney posted, and the table heading says so. Two: rather than continue this "discussion" (in which MilesMoney has not participated), I think posting an WP:ANRFC is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So, Srich, if I understand your proposal it is consistent with mine above -- to wit -- that this thread be closed with no action, no block for MilesMoney, and then that you will open an RFC/U for MilesMoney? If so, please register your support above. I am not familiar with RFC/U but I commend you for your support of closure here and I will read up on RFC/U today when I have a break in my schedule. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

e.c. RfC/U are not supposed to be brought by cheerleaders for the subject. See WP:RFC/U "WP:RFC/U is an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Should such an RfC/U ensure, I assume we'll be able to notify every participant in this discussion? User:Carolmooredc 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you do not understand. A closure means the admin makes a decision, and does not simply stop a discussion. But your description of my proposal is a distortion of what I have said. I think the topic ban on MM should be instituted (and I would actually block MM based on his "fuck Wikipedia" comments if nothing else). You are correct in one sense, you do not know anything about RFC/U – that process requires some participation from the involved editor, which MM gives no indication of wanting. And given the interaction that many editors have had with MM, I doubt that many would have the stomach to engage MM in such a forum. Why do I say you are distorting my statement? You suggest my position is "consistent with" yours. There is no truth in that statement. – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range

Several years ago, I raised this issue regarding an editor originating from the Philippines who made disruptive edits to several pages in the topic area that I frequent. He is still active and still disrupting pages, never answering talk page messages, and whenever they are left he just goes to a new IP. The most affected articles remain the same as they were in the previous report, with the editor changing name spellings from established forms on Wikipedia to forms I assume have only been used in Tagalog and unnecessarily tacking on the definite article to terms where it is not necessary. The IPs recently used are:

• 114.108.216.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 122.54.244.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (schoolblocked)
• 114.108.216.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.108.216.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In September, I posted a request to WP:SPI seen here and the range responsible was temporarily blocked, but this has not deterred this editor one bit. I would like to request a longer block to fully deal with this editor. A good portion of the edits made from the range come from this individual so it does not appear there will be much collateral damage, but that will be up to the blocking administrator to decide. I cannot deal with this editor by myself, particularly when some parties believe that I am WP:BITEing the individual, when they do not know any of the extended history of attempted and failed contact.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have applied a one month range block to 114.108.216.0/24, which seems to me to be narrow enough that there will be very little collateral damage. -- The Anome (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did you block it though? The edits appear to be good faith and are clearly beneficial, like adding wikilinks and reverting unconstructive edits/vandalism and correcting grammar.[36][37][38] Ryulong reverts the edits to Sentai articles wholesale, but aside from differences in formatting and views on prose, this editor is not a problem.[39] If anything, Ryulong's ownership of the topic area and constant abrasive interactions and instant assumption of bad faith is more concerning.[40] Ryulong constantly yells at editors in all caps for good faith additions that do not appear to be contentious.[41][42] And it goes without saying that some of Ryulong's reverts seem to enforce his own translation preferences.[43] And as evidence of this, I point out that Ryulong translated "Kore ga! Baō da!!" as "I Am Baoh!" where "Kore ga" translates as "This is!" or for emphasis "This! Is!" as mentioned at Talk:JoJo's_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle#Baoh. I am more concerned about Ryulong actions than I am about the IP editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I blocked it because I WP:AGF on Ryulong's behalf; they are a well-respected editor, and on first inspection, their complaint appeared to be quite uncontroversial: the IPs were certainly all editing the same topics in the same way. Seeing the other comments below, I then took a closer look and decided to unblock after failing to find anything to confirm Ryulong's comments. I remain open-minded on the issue, but will leave the resolution of this to other admins. -- The Anome (talk)

I agree. They don't appear to be vandalism, and the block should be unblocked. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 18:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said the edits were vandalism. I have pointed out that for at least three years there has been an unresponsive editor constantly enforcing the same undiscussed generally unhelpful changes to at least a dozen articles despite several attempts at communication to convince him to stop. ChrisGualtieri, I find it appalling that you are trying to turn my request for help into shooting myself in the foot. The Baoh issue is done and over with and completely unrelated, as are edits made to Power Rangers and related pages, particularly when I have told multiple editors multiple times that they need sources to prove a statement that they wish to put on the article, and I've been through at least two RFCs/RSN threads/I can't remember on similar statements in the past. And really, you're trying to get me in trouble for discovering an editor had posted copyrighted images to the commons which forced me to start a massive cleanup last night as well? What we need to do is get the Ghost in the Shell issue done with and then I can gladly request that we be interaction banned so neither of us has to see each other on this website, again. As my request has been answered, this thread can rightly be closed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I've gone back over a few of the edits from these IP's at random, and I've got to say I can't see anything drastically wrong with them so far, apart from the change of name from Layda to Rayda, which is probably a matter of opinion because of the L/R ambiguity in the name "レーダ" in Japanese. Ryulong, can you please post some diffs that show (a) behavior from this editor that goes against community consensus, facts from reliable sources or Wikipedia's site policies, and (b) your attempts to engage with them regarding this? In the meantime, I've unblocked the IP range; please note that I will happily re-block it later if the diffs support your arguments. -- The Anome (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The following diffs comprise evidence that I have made multiple attempts to communicate, assuming good faith, even though in the past I have never once received a response. [44] [45] [46] [47]. The only thing that has changed is the IP ceasing to use the bold and line breaking format, but he persists in using "the" before the names of certain characters that happen to be robots.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, I didn't say you called these edits vandalism; but you have repeatedly done so in your reports. For 114.108.216.30 you submitted a report with simply "Long term vandal".[48][49] I am saying that the IP editor reverted unconstructive edits and vandalism. I do not think a "R.I.P" is constructive, but the editor did remove it. The only thing I see about the editor is that you disagree about the unofficial English translation of L/R as was the case with Rem/Lem in Trigun. What I do see is Ryulong pushing an equally unofficial translation without inserting reliable sources either. The attempts to engage with them seem to be more or less yelling all caps and stating authoritatively his dominance and the IP editor does seem to be unaware of the problem because I do not see the editor responding to Ryulong or defending themselves - or even made aware of the repeated block requests filed by Ryulong which more or less go unanswered as noted by the blank block log on the IP address. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to get prompt responses? Or at least that is how I used to get prompt responses in the past. A single anon IP that changes daily is never going to bother to check a talk page to see if there are messages sent to them or messages concerning them. I have been dealing with this editor never saying a single word to me in 3 years. What makes you think that anything is going to change at this point? All I know is that within the next couple of days I am going to have to revert him, again, because every change he has made to these pages is unsourced (the pages are in shit shape to begin with so we don't need an IP adding useless unsourced trivia to them anymore than have been now) and to revert his extremely awkward English phrasing and his insistence that the names of the shows' giant robots need to be prefaced with the word "the", because that is certainly all that's happened here and here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Try using edit summaries (and stop marking the edits as minor) -- e.g. "English does not use the definite article in these contexts." NE Ent 02:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki rollback automatically marks edits as minor and no edit summaries (because I will often have to revert this IP on 5 pages at a time).—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So stop using rollback. (Rollback is for vandalism; as the IP probably thinks they're doing the right thing, it's not vandalism. NE Ent 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(Rollback can also be used to revert several problematic edits in a row so long as afterward you send the user you reverted a message stating the issues that required the use of rollback.)—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, and according to your post above you've been doing that for three years and it's not working, probably because the editor's IP keeps changing. But the article location doesn't change, so if you leave an edit summary, maybe they see it. Additionally, you could try sticking a <!-- --> comment in the first "the" you remove next time so maybe they'll see it the text itself. NE Ent 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is a content dispute, with a side order of non-communication, and not a matter for AN/I. The two issues here, Layda vs. Rayda, and definite article vs. no definite article, are arguable either way in this case. I agree with the posters above who suggest the use of edit summaries and inline comments to try to establish communications. -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't worked before it sure as hell ain't going to start working now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not just use Twinkle rollback, which allows for "AGF rollback", "rollback", and "vandalism rollback", with the first two giving an option for an edit-summary explanation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle rollback is too slow at times to deal with multiple problematic edits. And I might note that the user is now active as 114.108.216.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have actually seen that the edits, other than the constant changes of spelling (which I had to deal with, again, as I changed more than the R/L issue) are beneficial. I hope that he responds this time around, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gwillhickers on Thomas Jefferson and also slavery

At the Thomas Jefferson article, User:Gwillhickers has been disruptive about how we portray Jefferson as a slave owner, especially with regard to how we portray Jefferson fathering children by his slave Sally Hemings. As I look further into Gwillhickers' history on the topic of slavery, I see that many editors have observed his disruptive pattern of continuing to post repetitive and tiresome talk page arguments, and failing to recognize that a consensus has been reached against him. These themes were covered in detail at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers in May–July 2011. User:Brad101 said at the RfC that Gwillhickers was the instigator of disruption. User:Alanscottwalker said Gwillhickers "refused to recognize consensus for much too long." User:Stephan Schulz said Gwillhickers frequently attacks modern scholarship, and he observed Gwillhickers' "apparent inability to change his mind even if confronted with the weight of academic opinion." User:Parkwells noted in a separate section Gwillhickers' "disruptive and tendentious" behavior regarding Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, with the poor behavior traced to January 2011 when Gwillhickers responded to these changes by User:Ebanony. Ebanony posted a NORN report the next month but nobody responded. At the RFCU, Parkwells noted the Fringe noticeboard entry filed by Ebanony in March 2011, in which Ebanony describes as fringe Gwillhickers' stance on the Jefferson paternity of Hemings' children. User:Joe bob attacks endorsed Ebanony's summary of Gwillhickers' disruption. The proposed RFCU solution (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers#Proposal 1) was that Gwillhickers be limited to 1RR, minimize conflict, stop being combative, recognize consensus against him, and apply for a mentor. This solution was not adopted. These are the exact problems I have been seeing since I first posted a comment at Talk:Thomas Jefferson in early September 2013. In the short time I have participated there, I have been amazed at how tendentious and argumentative is Gwillhickers, beating a dead horse long after all the other participants have reached an agreement or working compromise. What is more amazing is that nothing positive appears to have been accomplished by the 2011 RFCU. It's long past time for some kind of solution.

Racism

I was shocked recently at the Jefferson talk page when Gwillhickers made a deeply racist observation on October 3. He said:

If you want to see bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF.

(Typically, Gwillhickers modified his own talk page entry afterward, in this case by changing "bias" to "acute bias".) Clicking on either of the two URLs shows a photo of an African American scholar. The clear inference was that these two scholars are biased because they are African Americans. User:The Four Deuces was so stunned by what appeared to be an outright racist observation that he asked for clarification. I needed no clarification so I said that the statement was "a racist reaction pure and simple." Several days later and after many other talk page edits, Gwillhickers posted a reply saying that he was not calling the two scholars biased because of their race but "because of their involvements"; see Talk:Thomas Jefferson#.22Most historians.22.3F for the context. Reminding him several times of his racist comment, I tried to shut down the repetitive and disruptive talk page edits by Gwillhickers, but he did not yield. He said he was not racist.

The Jefferson talk page was not the only place Gwillhickers made racist observations. In June 2013 at Talk:United_States/Archive 53#Added draft on slavery, he said slavery was not so bad, that slaves lived healthier and longer lives, and that they had thrived in America, multiplying by the millions. He complained that there is a "modern day stigma" against slavery, making it seem as if he would be happy to see it re-instituted. In June 2013, User:Cmguy777 wrote a shocked response to what he took to be a "racist and inappropriate" remark by Gwillhickers, one in which Gwillhickers wondered why American slaves were never known for making fine cigars. The various responses to this can be seen at Talk:United States/Archive 54#Lingering slavery issues.

Topic ban proposal

Because of three major behavioral problems—expressions of racism, repetitive and disruptive arguments, and failing to recognize and abide by consensus—I propose that Gwillhickers be indefinitely topic-banned on two topics: Thomas Jefferson and slavery, broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Unfortunately, action about this matter is necessary at this point... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question Is it necessary to include a topic ban on Jefferson? If there is a topic ban on American slavery, wouldn't that cover anything relating to Jefferson and Hemings? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to work with Gwillhickers for years. I even assume that he is acting in good faith. My impression is that he is very much a fan of Thomas Jefferson, and that he perceives any bit of criticism of Jefferson as an attack on America and/or himself (I'm not sure this can be differentiated). I'm quite sure Gwillhickers does not even consciously notice the racism - it's just a way for him to be able to discard one class of scholars who have helped (in my view ;-) to give us a more differentiated picture of Jefferson or (in his view) who try to smear the greatest (or, being generous, second-greatest) being who ever walked on Earth. Similarly, or so the argument goes, Jefferson was a slaveholder, so slavery cannot have been so bad. In my opinion, Jefferson is the source and primary locus of the disruption. As an aside: the discussion at the page made me buy (and read) two books and one journal edition. So there is a positive side to the debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support He wrote "If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF."[50] Both of the links he provided were to people who appeared to be African American. Later he said that he was referring to the fact that one of them was part of the NAACP, but that is disingenuous since the other person was not. And he would not have said "look at", just mentioned their connection. Gwhillickers has been arguing for years without receiving support, and is disruptive. TFD (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Gwhillickers central objection seems to be over whether a) an academic controversy can be described in the Thomas Jefferson article, which seems to be within WP policy, or b) whether only the majority of recent scholarship can be represented, which brings controversy. Exchanges have not been collegial. I agree with Jprg1966 to question a ban for Gwhillickers on Jefferson altogether. As to slavery, as I remember, the quote objecting to ‘modern day stigma’ against slavery was an objection to anachronistic narrative inappropriately condemning Jefferson, not Gwhillickers advocating race-based slavery in the modern day. I’m interested in what Yopienso has to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, or an indef block under WP:NOTHERE, unless anyone can show somewhere this user has contributed positively enough to negate all of this racist rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Gwillhickers was recently Editor of the Week at the Editor Retention Project. He does a lot of work on 18th and 19th century naval battles. Binksternet (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

...and then he turns around and does a lot of work creating 21st century Wikipedia battles :-) ES&L 11:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I participated in the 2011 RfC, and I'm disappointed that his behavior is little changed since then. I stopped contributing to the Jefferson page solely because of Gwillhickers's intrasignce and edits that really test my ability to assume good faith. His damage to the Jefferson article is real; there are a number of devoted, consensus-minded editors there who would likely have brought the article to GA or FA if not for being mired in this never-ending dispute. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I want to clarify my response. I have no idea if Gwillhickers is racist or not. To me, his comments seem more ignorant and ill-considered than actually racist. I support this topic ban because he has been a disruptive editor who ignores consensus, attacks anyone who disagrees with him, and activley holds back progress on the articles he edits. I make no claims to know the cause of his attitude; it may be racism, it may be not. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question I'm confused, I don't see the racism in this edit. Are you saying that posing the question "Is there reverse discrimination?" or more bluntly "Are these folks racist against white people?" is racist in itself?--v/r - TP 12:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Nowhere is the question "Is there reverse discrimination?", or "Are these folks racist against white people?" Moreover, on what basis was any such question posed? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"If you want to see bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond..." The OP said of this sentence "The clear inference was that these two scholars are biased because they are African Americans." I disagree. I think that is a clear intent to deliberately misunderstand. As I read it, the user is saying that if you reviewed the actions of Julian Bond, you'd see discrimination and racism by him. Racism isn't a "white person" condition or trait. Anyone can be racist. Anyone can be hateful. So, I'm asking for clarification. Is there something else I missed or am I to assume I'm correct that the OP, whom I've known for awhile and have respect for, made a stretch of to paraphrase this user in a way that paints their comments as racist? Because any time this subject comes up, it's quite easy to paint just about everyone as racist. I believe we need to stick with the facts and leave interpretation to the sideline.--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Why would anyone make such an accusation on the Jefferson talk page? Moreover, no one said that, the "bias" was an alleged bias regarding Jefferson scholarship (which by the way had no basis, except "look"). And what would be the basis for accusing Dianne Swann-Wright of anything, at all? And why are we accusing living people on our talk pages (see WP:BLP)? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TP. There is no misunderstanding. There is certainly not "a clear intent to deliberately misunderstand", which is an accusation of lying, by the way. Gwillhickers has repeatedly made clear his view that Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children is something promoted by African-Americans for ideological reasons (though I've never been entirely clear what those reasons are in his mind). Gwillhickers provided links to photographs when he made those statements. The only plausible explanation is that he wanted us to see what they looked like. Did he link to Bond's writings, or to an article that "reviewed the actions of Julian Bond" providing evidence of "discrimination and racism by him"? No he did not. Your attempt to explain away Gwillhickers' remark makes no sense at all. And your attempt to smear the the OP User:Binksternet is outrageous. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Outrageous? Chill your horses. The OP presented a diff and characterized it in the most offensive way possible to pass the bar of racism. So, it's outrageous to question it? Please, don't ever speak to me if you are beyond reasonable questioning. I'm tired of the "If you question us, you're ____________ist" crowd. I just want an answer and since I have no dime in this fight that means I'm uninvolved. And if an uninvolved person can read Gwillhickers' comment different than Binksternet's interpretation, than it deserves some scrutiny. Your comment makes me want to oppose this straight out because you, Paul, are coming off like your part of a lynch mob. If you want my support, you need to be more convincing and less combative.--v/r - TP 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP presented a diff and characterised it in the only way that makes any kind of sense. You then accused the OP of deliberately misunderstanding - which means you are accusing him of lying. If that's not outrageous, I don't know what it is. The rest of your post is just histrionics. Apparently it's OK for you to accuse an editor of lying, but not to be criticised for it. You have no response to the point that your interpretation is simply unsustainable and unintelligible. BTW, I always switch off when an editor starts referring to a "lynch mob". It should be the Wikipedian equivalent of Godwin's law. The first person to accuse those who support a sanction of some sort against some editor of being "part of a lynch mob" should automatically lose the argument. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"The OP presented a diff and characterised it in the only way that makes any kind of sense" Any kind of sense to you, obviously. That's why you disagree, but clearly I'm not the only one who sees more possibility, and more likely from my perspective, than what the OP has presented. I don't, and I never will, buy the automatic kneejerk accusations of _____isms that plague this project. The OP stretched the meaning of the comment; that's my position and you haven't made any kind of scratch in that. You've came in here with fists flying. I don't put up with that bullying crap. Find someone else to push around.--v/r - TP 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I see again you have no response to the central point that Gwillhickers asked the reader to "look at" the people he was commenting on and linked to pictures of them. Hence your explanation simply makes no sense. And you have no response to the fact that you in effect made a specious accusation of lying. Of course "kneejerk" accusations are wrong. Accusations clearly supported by evidence are not. Your reply is just bluster, fairly typical of editorial practices of "pushing around" and bullying rather than making an argued and coherent point. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And once again, your going to the furthest extreme you can and expecting it to stick. "Paul, I want you to look at on Bill Gates to see why Microsoft is so wealthy." That statement is not telling you to go look at Bill's skin color. It's telling you to go look at Bill Gates the person and read about him. "If you want to see Right-wing extremist, go look at Bill O'Rielly." That's not a statement to go look at his skin color. It's a statement to go look at the person. He linked to their biographies. I can point to literally millions of Wikipedia article that link to folks biographical articles. There is nothing nefarious in that. And yet, you continue to insist there is. Here, Paul, go look at Barack Obama. Now go ahead, call me a racist, see how far that gets you.--v/r - TP 19:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the mere phrase "look at" is not a problem in itself. It's a problem when he then links to photographs and the context makes it clear that he's asking us to look at their faces. And no, he did not link to "biographies". If he had wanted to, he would not have chosen pages with next-to-no informative content (barely a couple of sentences) except pictures. I've no doubt he thinks that being associated with NAACP or being interested in African-American history is also a problem, but that's just further evidence of the problem with his approach. He is rejecting people because of who they are, not because he is providing evidence that allows the reader to "review the actions of Julian Bond" demonstrating "discrimination and racism by him". Neither of the pages linked do any such thing.Paul B (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, he was not linking to photos. I'm sure he is perfectly capable of linking photos if he chose to. But even if he were linking there specifically to point out their photos, linking to photos is racist now? There couldn't possibly be a benign reason for it like for, gee whiz, identification? Again, waiting for your accusation because, oopsie, I just linked a photo. I'm willing to concede that a lot of this guy's comments come off as racist and if he's not racist than he's at least completely ignorant to acceptable behavior. But this specific diff is not it.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just being daft. The linking to photos is meaningful in the context, given the statement made. How on earth does the photo help to "identify" the person in this context, unless he thinks we might to bump into them in the street and ask about their research? But there is clearly no point in engaging in discussion with you. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, now we're going to get into a "No you are, but what am I?" If anyone is being daft, it's you. He's not linking to a photo. He's perfectly capable of linking to a photo if he chose to. He didn't. He linked to a bio. And even if he did, even in the context of the sentence, it's still not racist. You want desperately for something to be there that's not and it's a blatant lie to make it out to be that. There is obviously apt material on this guy, find something with more bite. You've not convinced me, and frankly that's probably because you came in here all jerkish and pushy and now I'm completely put off and not really interested in what you have to say. If you had been less dickish, perhaps you could've convinced me, but you didn't. I'm not convinced by that diff. Other arguments are convincing me, but not that one.--v/r - TP 23:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis, do you not realise how offensive it is to compare people who are raising issues of racism with a lynch mob? Please note for the avoidance of doubt, given your sensitivity on the subject, that I am not saying you were racist, merely racially insensitive. Neljack (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification because yes that was the first thing that went through my mind. If you read what I wrote, I said that Paul B specifically was acting like a he was part of a lynch mob. My quote exactly: "you, Paul, are coming off like your part of a lynch mob." So no, I haven't compared people who are raising issues of racism, I've compared Paul B. I feel like, sometimes, these issues are more of a "I'm going to prove I'm not a racist by slamming someone else for racism". If the feeling is a good "I've fought racism today" instead of a terrible "I can't believe people continue to believe these things" then there is a problem. Both thoughts serve the same ends, but one isn't altruistic. The specific diff that the OP quotes doesn't meet the threshold. I've explained that but it seems thumping a racist is more important to some people than getting it right. I'm concerned with 'getting it right' be it racists, homophobes, transphobes, sexists, nationalists, and really any form of hatred. It's so easy to take someone's benign words and make them out to be hateful. I want to be sure we are morally right in what we're doing. I'm not here to defend Gwillhickers, I'm here to defend Wikipedia's morality by making sure we're being meticulous in our claims.--v/r - TP 13:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful reply, TParis. I feel, however, that you are not extending the same assumption of good faith that you make towards Gwillhickers to Binksternet and Paul Barlow. They are not deliberately misrepresenting the comments or lying - they just disagree with your interpretation of them. And quite reasonably, in my view. If you suggest two black people are biased on a matter relating to slavery, fail to point to anything they've said or done to justify this claim, and have made a number of other comments that read as an apology for slavery, then you shouldn't be surprised if people interpret your suggestion of bias as racist. Neljack (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the proposal makes baseless accusations and completely fails to prove its point — TParis hits the nail on the head. "Clear inferences" are not racism, and the proposer seems to be saying that statements of fact are racism: "slaves thrived in America" and "slaves lived healthier and longer lives" are either accurate factual statements or inaccurate factual statements, but they're not racism. Race card playing is no more appropriate here than anywhere else, and this needs to be demonstrated clearly. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well then reject those allegations you find distateful, and turn your attention to the other issues raised. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, Nyttend, one could see them as such, and Gwillhickers probably does--but I don't understand how you, a person of fairly sound mind, could honestly say that "slaves thrived in America" is neutral, since "thrived" does not mean "increased in number". If slaves "thrived" in that manner it's more likely because chattel slavery proved successful, for the while, as a population strategy. Those comments along the line of "slaves in the US didn't have it so bad and thrived", that's some serious nonsense with terrifically racist implications, since "thrive" suggests all kinds of things (flourish, increase in wealth or success, prosper) that are simply not true, besides insulting and ignorant. The RfC is troubling enough, and the "Presentation of 'most historians' claim" section on the Jefferson talk page is really laughable. (That whole section is like a dungheap, attracting comments like "There isn't any question that the NAACP's agenda is racist.") I'm not so convinced by the inference from the "key staff members" incident, but that's also due to Gwhillhickers' apparent inability or unwillingness to explain what they meant by it, and that in turn has led to a long section of...timesinkery.

  Initially, I was just going to place a note in the margin of Nyttend's remark, but the more I look at this the more I think that a topic ban from Jefferson and from any slavery-related article (section? discussion?) is a good thing, and we should throw in US Civil Rights. I will defer to the closing admin to phrase "slavery broadly construed"; I don't want to deny Gwillhickers the privilege of editing United States and other general articles as a whole, but I want them to stay away from the slavery and Civil Rights bits. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• question – Are you sure you want to do this with both topics? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for slavery topic ban based on the evidence. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for topic ban from Jefferson, all Hemings-related articles (including Controversy), and slavery- Gwillhickers has refused to recognize the consensus of modern scholarship on these issues, or of editors who tried to work together on these articles. Over months of trying to deal with him on this topic, he suggested that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello), scholars such as Annette Gordon-Reed, Paul Finkleman, and David Brion Davis (among others), and publications such as those by the National Genealogical Society (which he persisted in confusing with the National Geographic Society), Smithsonian Institution, and a PBS program on this topic, among others, did not constitute RS. He is extremely disruptive, diverting other editors' attempts at reasonable discussion and ignoring cited scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• As I have pointed out before, there are 100's of historians who have written about Jefferson and their opinions on various topics vary greatly. Some editors have claimed that "modern historians" share the same opinion and have claimed they are the vast majority -- but this is only a claim made by a few biased authors and orgs like the Thomas Jefferson foundation. As I have pointed out on the Jefferson talk page there are many historians who do not share the opinions that you claim "most modern historians" do. Again, there is a wide margin of differing opinion about Jefferson and your comments here are proof of the ongoing attempt to manipulate the page with one-sided opinion rather than presenting the facts, with mention of the varying opinions, and letting the readers decide for themselves what is what regarding Jefferson and his ideals. -- Gwillhickers 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support for topic ban from Jefferson, all Hemings-related articles". This is not really about whether or not Gwillhickers has made comments that are "racist". It's about his general propensity for bizarre conspiracy theories, according to which respected scholars are not to be trusted because of some supposed agenda, whether determined by their race, their politics or their nationality. One of his most recent interventions has been to call into question the integrity of the famous science journal Nature, apparently because it is based in Britain [51]. He writes "At this late date there is also a lot of unanswered questions about why DNA analysis was handled in Britain, not in the USA, who funded and oversaw the experiments and how the DNA samples were handled. These are fair questions, still unanswered and quite warranted considering the way Britain's Nature magazine reported and skewed the facts in the typical fashion still practiced today." What on earth does "the typical fashion still practiced today" mean? Typical of who? The British? Nature? The anti-Jefferson cabal? Clearly there is a heavy hint of some sort of nefarious plot, but its actual content remains unclear (are the British are still harbouring resentment against Jefferson for his role in undermining the Empire?). Interventions like this are commonplace from this editor, and only serve to muddy the waters. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as written...I encourage Gwillhickers to be much less confrontational and work within consensus. Unlike Binksternet, I do not see the links to Bond and Swann-Wright to be racist in overtone. Without violating BLP, it isn't a fringe belief that Bond has made some controversial comments (as our own article even refers to them as) and that's the toned down examples[52]. Some of the other comments by Gwillhickers are somewhat disruptive...so I propose a 30 day topic ban from Jefferson, Hemings and articles about race and slavery or where there is a discussion ongoing about race or slavery..--MONGO 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the singling out one user, or any user, who raises fair points and questions in a complex and controversial subject. Trying to punish a user for making points on a talk page that are not agreeable with certain individuals is a 'solution'(?) worse than this perceived problem, and playing the race card by the OP is the all time low here. Binksternet was losing the debate regarding sourced statements and this hearing is the result. All of my edits in the article have been sourced and made with compromise so this entire hearing is uncalled for imo. Support a temporary topic ban on Jefferson page for all users until tempers cool. We need a resolution for all participants to abide by. -- Gwillhickers 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, sadly. Gwillhickers edits in good faith, but seems unable to distinguish between opinions of WP editors and opinions of scholars. Dedicated to upholding a sterling legacy for TJ, he rejects scholars' opinions with which he disagrees. He does not realize that the article isn't supposed to decide whether or not current scholarship may be flawed, but simply reflect that scholarship for better or for worse.

I believe the ban should be on Jefferson and slavery since he sincerely doesn't understand our objections to his edits and therefore is unlikely to change. Yopienso (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support full ban of Gwillhickers on the Thomas Jefferson page, all Hemings related articles, and slavery (after seeing his comments above). Gwillhickers has been at this for almost three years. I am an occasional Wikipedia editor and a history professor. My students typically use wikipedia as a starting point for their research. I originally contributed to this page in early 2011. I returned to the page out of curiosity. So I was somewhat surprised that Gwillhickers was still POV pushing some of the same minor ideas and fringe sources. There is already a consensus on the Hemings relationship and Jefferson's views on slavery in the historical community, as extensive research has been done, including timelines and reviews of his personal letters. There will always be fringe historians who disagree with the views of the majority on any major historical figure or event. It's just human nature. But continuing to push these ideas in an effort to change the page constitutes persistent and pervasive POV pushing. I would not normally support a ban for POV pushing as editors can be occasionally passionate, but Gwillhickers has been doing this for years and has no intention of stopping. I believe this person is more akin to a legacy protector, which is not what wikipedia should be used for.

However, I am most concerned with Gwillhickers making unsourced confrontational (and controversial) statements. For example, Gwillhckers stated that the Hemings family was somehow "coached" not to exhume their deceased relative. I believe Gwillhickers was insinuating this as proof that the Hemings family are not descended from Thomas Jefferson. I asked Gwillhickers to source this, which he/she could not do. Gwillhickers has made other blanket statements without sourcing them. As a historian, I find this concerning. I would not typically support banning a user from a topic, but this editor has engaged in blatant POV pushing on this topic for almost three years. This editor also responds to fellow editors in a confrontational manner. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As Joe Bob' is well aware I have provided a long list of historians and professors from notable universities and elsewhere that have a different view about the Hemings controversy, and they are by no means a "fringe" group. Yet Joe Bob continues to use such deceptive language in his account here, so all I can do is ask that his comments now be considered with this sort of testimony in mind. Btw, I am only one of several editors who have been active on the Jefferson page for a number of years. As I pointed out above, the Jefferson page was being used as a coatrack for the Hemings issue a couple of years ago, with some five pages devoted to this topic. I brought attention to this problem and drew large support to remedy the situation, which is apparently why Joe bob is here now, as he was out voted by a wide margin which more than explains why this editor is here now trying to invent other issues as he has just demonstrated. -- Gwillhickers 05:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your "long list" is not only not very long, it also contains people who have been dead for 10 years (and hence are not a measure of current opinion) and people and organizations which are decidedly not reliable sources for the topic. It also misrepresents the qualifications and opinions of people on the list (Patrick Mullins, e.g., was only a PhD student, not a PhD, in 2001, when your source for his opinion was written - and, of course, at least nominally he only reports on the so-called Scholars Commission Report, not endorse it). In other words, it's the typical result of an unfiltered Google trawl for confirmation of an pre-existing bias, not a useful list to gauge current expert consensus. The problem is that you keep bringing up such low-quality sources and defend them far beyond what's reasonable - that is, you are only doing less than half of your homework, but then insist that it's A grade material. This is an enormous waste of time for other editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the list is quite long and only the tip of the iceberg. To this day no one has presented a list representing the other view. Just claims backed up by TJF, PBS (which is a peer-driven media source with advertisers and grant givers to appease), and a couple of other authors. Btw, there are books written by Finkleman and A.G. Reed that are more than ten years old, so are you saying they should be ignored also? Speaking of wasting time, is this the place to be arguing the validity of sources? -- Gwillhickers 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not - but if you keep bringing bad sources (my interpretation) here, they need to be discussed. Gordon-Reed and Finkelman are both alive, and actively publishing in the relevant field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe Bob is the only editor I know of that has demanded sources for statements made in a discussion. I have made no unsourced edits in the Jefferson article itself and all potentially controversial edits have been made with compromise. Re: The coaching claim. The present day Hemings descendents were at first willing to go along with further DNA tests, then changed their minds. One (among others) source says: Why did the eight descendants of Madison Hemings originally give me their oral approval to exhume William Beverly Hemings and then refuse to give written approval just a few days later? I read somewhere many months back that they were coached into changing their minds, but regrettably I can not find that source today, but as I told Joe Bob, it was not my intention to include the coaching claim into the article, yet he is still trying to turn such things into some sort of issue now. 'This' is the sort of thing I and other editors have had to deal with from time to time trying to maintain balance and neutrality on the Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers 05:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe Bob is the only one who has asked for sources for your comments? Either you have misunderstood others requests or you have not heard them (see, WP:IDHT). (Also, did you insert responses into Joe Bob's comments? Don't do that, please.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what Gwillhickers is referring to. We reached consensus on this topic several years ago, which was no easy feat with Gwillhickers' tactics. I am also not the only editor to question Gwillhickers sources. I am not a contentious editor. I don't follow this page continually. The problem is that Gwillhickers uses unsourced statements to bolster his argument. His statement that the Hemings family was somehow "coached" cannot be sourced. His source that the Hemings family "changed their minds" on exhumation has problems too. It comes from a WordPress blog, which would be fine if I could read about the blogger's qualifications. It also doesn't explain how the blogger came about the information. Historians typically source their research meticulously. Also I continue to be concerned about some of Gwillhickers comments. Even after all this debate he continues to insinuate that Jefferson's slaves must have been well treated. Again, another unsourced statement. See his comment below.

"We were discussing the treatment of slaves. The analogy was made to point out that slavery in the U.S., and in particular regarding Jefferson, was dealt with in an entirely different manner than it was in Africa, Brazil and other parts of the world. When someone closely examines the history and the manner in which Jefferson treated slaves they see a very different picture than the one you would apparently have us believe." Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Drmies, Stephan Schulz, Paul B and others. (Many of us supporting have had substantive disagreements with each other in the past and will likely have them in the future but on this we agree, and it is not because we think disagreement bad.) I recently decided to abandon the Jefferson article, which I at one time hoped to help advance to improved article status. It was sadly due to Gwillhickers. Gwillhickers appears too personally invested in off-site battle on certain issues and importing it to Wiki talk pages, which is a detriment to the project, especially in such subjects. That is the most AGF determination to make at this point. Being too personally invested led, in part, to the his RfC/U. (As an aside, I am still mystified by the Dianne Swann-Wright comment (see WP:BLP) -- which is hardly improved by the ad hominem w/r/t the NAACP -- and many of his other comments discussed above). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Alanscottwalker, if I ever disagreed with you, it was most likely my fault. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sure that some of you will be surprised I oppose a topic ban however, Gwill is not and has not been the only contentious editor of that article or the talk page battles. I'm not going to mention any names because this is no place to drag them in. Once I took a good look at the Jefferson article several years back it was evident that POV pushing was going on. At one time the Jefferson/Hemings debacle dominated the entire article and mentions of the supposed relationship were inserted everywhere. After much battle it was finally brought down to a reasonable level and myself - and I believe Gwill - have had to watch the Jefferson article to keep the debate from spreading all over again. The reoccurring theme of the Jefferson article is that a consensus is reached but not long after someone else jumps in making edits and the whole circus starts all over again. Gwill and myself have been accused of having a 'White Supremest' agenda and that we belonged to the KKK. Most of you here seemed to have missed that part. I took a lot of abuse for preventing the article from projecting Jefferson as only a cruel slave owner and nothing else, and I believe that's still Gwill's perspective. After a couple years of playing sentinel I got sick of the whole thing and left after realizing the article would likely never progress any further and I see that I was right. Gwill is no angel btw, he needs to learn when to call it quits and work better with other editors but a topic ban is out of line. Brad (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not surprised, but as your comment suggests detachment is what is sorely needed there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As I remember, some years ago one user was very persistent in inserting Hemings-related material with a negative spin, even to the extent of trying to have Jefferson characterised as a "rapist" (on the grounds that Hemings was unable to withhold consent). So, of course there are extremists on the opposite side of the debate. But that's not the issue here. It's not about supporting a "side", but about Gwhillickers unrelenting questioning of sources on spurious grounds and attritional warfare on the talk page in a way that creates problems for other editors. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul, please take a close look at the way debate involving sources has unfolded on the Jefferson talk page. It always starts with the general claim that some of my sources are "fringe" and not published by mainstream publishers. I have demonstrated that there is a wide body of sources written by historians and professors from notable universities, most of whom have published their works in mainstream publications. (Search the talk page for 'mainstream') The debate about sources is quite warranted I'm afraid, and one that I have never initiated. -- Gwillhickers 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for both Jefferson and slavery as written. While I am concerned at Gwhillickers personal attacks on alternative sources, a) I believe both sides of the controversy about parentage should be expressed with the modern majority view denoted in the article body, and b) variations in the severity of slavery practice should be admitted into the narrative without indicating approval of it, even for that time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea that one can not express opinions about claims without being banned for having "wrong opinions" is antithetical to the basic premise of Wikipedia, and that appears to be the root cause presented here. Using topic bans to prevent discourse on a topic is silly at best. Collect (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The principal issue is not that Gwhillickers' views are 'wrong', but that his attritional approach and conspiracy-theory attitude to sources is a problem for other editors. Where do you get the idea that anyone is trying to "prevent discourse"? Paul B (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I take no issue with opposing views. There is a time and a place for such views and they should be presented. However, this person is POV pushing to the extreme. This person is not just an editor with opposing views. This person wishes to rewrite Jefferson's obituary. He cannot edit this page objectively. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposing views are healthy on a talk page. The problem with Gwillhickers is that he does not recognize compromise or consensus; everything is viewed through his particular lenses. As one example, he stated on October 26 that the involved editors had reached a compromise solution regarding one paragraph in the lead section. He said, "We struck a compromise, it went back and forth a couple of times with other edits, and then it ended."[53] This was after 26 days of a bunch of reverting and rewriting the paragraph in question, and after about 100 kb of ongoing talk page discussion on the topic, with Alanscottwalker, TFD, Yopienso, Stephan Schulz, Joe bob attacks and myself generally opining against Gwillhickers, while Rjensen, TheDarkOneLives and TheVirginiaHistorian generally making comments that were aligned with Gwillhickers. By coincidence, the involved editors left the disputed article text alone for five days while discussion continued on the talk page, but there was no settlement, no compromise reached. The last person to tweak the article text was Gwillhickers (after a lot of back-and-forthing), so his preferred text remained in the article for five days. When he said on the talk page that a compromise had been reached, I was astounded, and I quickly rewrote the disputed text. There was never a compromise "struck", the discussion was still developing. That's the problem—Gwillhickers thinks that his final reversion/adjustment is somehow the new compromise version even though discussion is still under way. Such a viewpoint favors the most bullheaded editors, the most likely to engage in edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• This account is (far) less than accurate on several notes. The compromise you're referring to above was a draft/proposal written by Yopienso, one that no one else but you opposed. It was the same basic lede statement 'opposed slavery all his life' (+ -) that was in place during Aug. 2012 all the way up to recently in Oct. 2013. All you've ever done is attempt to change this well sourced statement by (later, when pressed) citing some cherry-picked opinions only. Not facts. The article was quite stable until you came along when you just jumped in and began making major edits. You are not solely to blame -- another editor came along and tweaked the DNA statement to imply it only pointed to T.Jefferson, with no objection from you, btw. All my edits and debate were simply devoted to returning the page to the state it was in where we discussed neutrality for months to get it to that place. Finally, you have been no less "bullheaded" than myself on various points, and all my edits (save reverting yours) were preceded with discussion, so here too your account is one-sided and serves only to pat yourself on the back at my expense. Sadly, your less than honest account here is typical of your opening statements also. -- Gwillhickers 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all articles related to Jefferson, Hemmings and slavery The user's POV is clearly so strong that they are unable to edit neutrally and collaboratively in this area. The racism is extremely concerning. Neljack (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Making observations about Julian Bond and slavery in Brazil compared to the U.S. is not "racism" in the least so I don't appreciate these attempts to use buzz-words to turn heads here. If you are going to allege "racism" the least you could do is explain why. -- Gwillhickers 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert: I am concerned by some of Gwhillhickers responses below, especially his conversations with Beyond My Ken, which has spilled over to Beyond Ken's talk page. This interaction makes a compelling argument to topic ban this person. I am unsure about the process, so I respectuflly leave it to the discretion of other editors, but I believe the necessary votes have already been acquired to topic ban this person. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

query It will be interesting to see how declarations are counted. nine support, -- six oppose, -- one supports but would oppose if GW has made any other contributions, which he has, -- one supports to ban slavery but opposes ban Jefferson. So as written, the count is nine-for, eight-against. Is banning for a limited time? Is it accomplished by a simple majority? How long is the poll left open? -- two or more days for a severe penalty? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a poll, its a discussion. It also is not (at least officially) decided by counting snouts, but by weight of argument, as judged by the closing admin (if any - sometimes these things just peter out with no-one being interested to pursue it to the end). Admins rarely go against overwhelming majority, but may overrule small majorities or find no consensus. There is no specific time limit for ANI discussions. And your count seems to be very much off. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Reading all this reminds me of a lynch mob. No evidence has been provided showing that Gwillhickers has done anything much wrong. Plenty of of evidence has been provided that Gwillhickers has views on slavery that I and many other readers strongly disagree with. But before we lynch him/her for disagreeing with us, let us remember that for thousands of years, vast numbers of sensible people have regarded slavery either as a good thing, or as a natural and normal feature of civilisation. It is no bad thing to have someone honest enough to make the case for slavery on Wikipedia. It helps avoid group think. My Tea Party friends whittle on about how the "founding fathers" of the USA were so great. In Gwillhickers we have someone who really thinks what the founding fathers really thought, and not the propaganda rubbish they spouted in their declaration of independence, etc. By they way, millions of people in 2013 exist in de facto slavery; of course their owners are not so honest as Gwillhickers.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My only position regarding slavery in regard to Jefferson is that he opposed it all of his life and that he went through extraordinary measures to provide for slaves, working them no longer or harder than free farmers worked, allowing them to grow their own gardens, raise their own chickens, decent cloths, provisions, etc, all of which is supported by numerous sources. Bringing this perspective to the biography is not an endorsement of slavery as some would have you believe. This is all clearly evident with my edits in the article and on the talk page. Much of the disagreement is over how the various sources attempt to represent this affair in moral terms. And as I look around this noticeboard I can only notice how easy it's been for almost everyone here to get involved in debate over the sources, and just as frequently. Same with the Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per TFD Pass a Method talk 12:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban sadly. As an uninvolved editor I have to say there really is not much that can be done to defend a comment like this one:

“ Yes, they have a bias against anyone trying to promote falsehoods based on racially charged speculations based on sketchy evidence that would never stand up in a court if law, at least not in the free world. If you want to see bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF. -- ”

Linking to the profile pictures of african-american people and saying "all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members..." (emphasis added) has an undeniable racial undertone. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tparis. So he linked to a picture and called it biased. Does he expect you to look at their face? In pearticular, if who he had linked to was white, would we even be discussing this? I'm tired of people in society playing the race card or saying "if you disagree with my position you're a ____ist, radical, or worse". KonveyorBelt 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wee Curry Monster. Binksternet is using as prescription what could be later turned into a psychological observation: A "majority of observers... accepted the very high probability...". Reasonable doubt, a redoubtable notion. --Askedonty (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see such sanction as warranted in current situation. To be honest, I find Binksternet's original post here quite a bit more disturbing. Lots of "racism" accusations thrown around on quite weak grounds, and even such gem about Gwillhickers and slavery "making it seem as if he would be happy to see it re-instituted". Like seriously? If anything, this looks more like potential case for WP:BOOMERANG.--Staberinde (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since you believe I am off base regarding the racism allegation, can you address the remaining disruptive behaviors, the ones that came up in 2011 at the RFCU and have continued unabated? Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. User:Joe bob attacks is right, "POV pushing minor ideas for almost three years is a problem". Attrition is disruptive. It wears people out. Can I make a proposal of my own? Please let's ANI topic ban the next idiot who says "lynch mob". Bishonen | talk 16:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC).

You take exception to one form of name calling, yet you use the word "idiot" in the same breath, all the while you ignore names like "racist". Hello? Aside from your over reacting, wanting to go as far as banning someone who employs name calling like yourself, your behavior is rather hypocritical and as such doesn't carry much weight except maybe with other like minded individuals. Btw, lynch mobs hang people because they assume they are guilty, with no actual facts to support their behavior, so perhaps the reference has some weight after all. -- Gwillhickers 20:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support- Wow. Reading the threads below and the article Talk page(along with the comments at the top pointed to by Binksternet, it's hard to believe anyone would not support a Topic ban for this editor. There has been no good reason given for citing the two AA board members as 'biased' with the link to their bios. One would have to stick their head in the sand to not see the racism. Especially considering the compiled edits by the editor discussing this issue. Wow. Dave Dial (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"See racism", or 'assume racism'? Typically you did not actually point to a given statement and explain any "racism". All you're doing is assuming such, which is plain wrong. The reference to Julian Bond was warranted, as this individual has a long history of racially divisive statements and is now the head of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Calling this observation "racist" only suggests that perhaps you harbor some of your own prejudices against anyone who has ever criticized someone who happens to be African American. I have criticized several authors who are white -- are you suggesting because of Bond's race that he is above criticism? Virtually all the recent debates on the Jefferson page were initiated or instigated by someone else. If you look at the entire history of that page (i.e.the whole truth), you will see ongoing debates that involve many others besides myself. Don't appreciate being solely accused of something that has been going on there with many others for the longest time. The debates started long before I arrived. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban topic for everyone then. Or do you perhaps see a difference with: "A brief check on some of the people listed shows that they seem to be right-wing. Harvey Mansfield is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, David N. Mayer is a "close associate" of the Atlas Society and his publisher is the Cato Institute, Paul A. Rahe is a fellow of the Hoover Institution and host at the National Review, and Forrest McDonald is a "paleo-conservative". --Askedonty (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that there is a clear link between the "he didn't bang the slave girl" faction and a wider ideological view of revering the Founding Fathers, allied to a particular religio-moral agenda. It's comparable to the link between climate change denial and Free Market ideology. Such ideologically motivated rejections of scientific and historical evidence are characteristic of both the "right" and the "left". Right-wing fundamentalists will reject Darwinian models of evolution; left-wing Feminists will often reject Darwinian models of differences between male and female sexual behaviour. When we see a consensus of unaffiliated historians and scientists affirming a position on evidence, while the opponents are all clearly identified with an ideology, we have good reason to note that the opponents all seem to be Religious Fundamentalists, or Radical Feminists, or whatever: groups who are already committed to a belief that is threatened by the position they reject. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking position against an ideology does not allow so easily to be not dependent on ideology(/ies). Regarding Hemings-Jefferson the DNA evidence did not change fundamentally the equation, there always was the possibility to believe it was the one case or it was the opposite. But "reasonable doubt" is not clearing the way if there is any need to readjust one's certainties, it maintains a divisive situation for the minority faction. What you need is either certainties, or hopes. -- Askedonty (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your first sentence at all. It is not a question of taking a position "against an ideology", but of noting that views held in the face of evidence are linked to ideology in particular cases. The DNA evidence did change fundamentally the equation when combined with historical evidence. "Reasonable doubt" is a legal concept that can't sensibly be applied to history. We couldn't even say that there is a historical consensus that Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar if we applied that test, since all we have is legally "hearsay" evidence and some coins with pictures of daggers on them. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support I was going to stay out of this one - but having seen this comment by GWillhickers, I think there's no choice but to topic ban, and most likely start a new RFC/U. There's no room for that type of response, even if you feel you've been the victim first. Willhickers needs to get out of Dodge until he's actually ready to behave in a community manner, with a lot less emotion ES&L 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert: I apologize in advance for this post, as I had hoped to leave this debate entirely. After a day of reflection, I understand that Gwillhickers is passionate about this topic, as TJ is a hero for him. I can understand where his passion comes from, as TJ is also a hero for me, but unlike Gwillhickers, I admire TJ's greatness and his flaws: "warts and all," as the old phrase goes. Historians love flaws. It's what makes our subjects relatable and interesting. So I truly wanted to look at this situation with a fresh set of eyes and give this editor the benefit of the doubt. Cooler heads and all. But unfortunately this is not the first time this editor has been reported to the Admin Board and it will likely not be the last. Gwillhickers has been to the Admin Board before and has also previously been on the receiving end of a RFC. Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:SOAP or a forum WP:FORUM. We are prohibited from advocating or promotion WP:PROMOTION. I don't really have anything to gain or lose here. I do not believe Jefferson to be either a saint or a sinner, but somewhere in between (which is where most of us reside).

Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents - involving Gwillhickers

• July 2013
• December 2012
• July 2012
• July 2011
• March 2011

I fully expect to return to Jefferson's page in a year or two to see Gwillhickers engaged in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I would like to be wrong. I have heard one editor accuse other editors of provoking him. I don't see how. Editors come and go, but there is only one common denominator.

The reason I'm' here: After reaching consensus with Gwhillhickers in March of 2011, I was surprised to see Gwillhickers still pushing the same minor ideas in October of 2013. Fine--we can all debate if the ideas are in fact minor or not, but once consensus is reached, one editor should not be continuing the debate...for years. Perhaps, as Gwillhickers has suggested, I don't know the full story behind the incidents over the last two years? What I do know is that some of his information is sourced, but some of it isn't. Some of his information is based on his own personal opinion. So perhaps he should be topic banned this time, perhaps not, or perhaps we all should? I don't know. As it appears that Gwillhickers and I are on opposite sides, perhaps he and I can work together to come up with a satisfying solution?

I am more than willing to compile yet another list of peer reviewed sources (some of which has already posted in the TJ talk page and throughout other wikipedia pages). One I can recall off the top of my head was done at the University of Virginia with Professor Jan Lewis and Peter Onuf and a group of historians. If people want additional information from me please respond to my talk page. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor additional comment - User:Joe bob attacks who looks quite well accustomed to wikipedia rules and functioning considering the way he wikilinks different policies here, and has been very active on "frontline" of this discussion, has made three (read 3) content edits to wikipedia since 2009, and if we discount 2 reverts then he has added exactly 1 sentence of new content to wikipedia. I personally find it somewhat strange, but thats just me.--Staberinde (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I have added more than 1 sentence. Perhaps I didn't log in and just edited under my IP address (at the time), but I know I've made edits to the John Adams pages some years ago. I've also edited several pages about movies and musicians. But is there something you're accusing me of? I am accustomed to wiki rules because I have actually read through the guidelines. I was under the impression that was what people should do? Also, I have seen/observed how others edit since 2009. It doesn't take a genius to figure out after four years. I have stated on more than one once that I am an occasional editor. I participated in the consensus building on the Jefferson page in 2011. I returned to that particular page just recently. I have been very open about that. I'm pretty actively engaged in other research currently, which unfortunately limits my wiki editing time, but that doesn't mean I am not an active wiki reader. I especially enjoy reading talk pages. I may only return to edit a page every year or so. I'm not sure if you're insinuating that my opinion is somehow less valuable or that I'm up to something nefarious? Either way, you're incorrect. And this conversation shouldn't be about me. Please feel free to do a check of my IP address. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Gwillhickers

No edits made by me in the Jefferson article warrant that I be singled out and topic banned, as all edits involving potentially controversial topics are done with compromise, discussion and are well sourced. This is simply an underhanded attempt by user Binksternet to keep me and others from maintaining balance and neutrality regarding slavery on the Thomas Jefferson page. This issue started with debate about the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the entire Jefferson biography, with each topic summarized with a sentence -- yet the Sally Hemings (a slave) topic is a short paragraph, with details and commentary added to it, unlike any other topic in the lede. I went along and compromised on this, and even left it up to another editor to draft a suitable statement for it in the lede, and user Binksternet has even objected to that, and has not been willing to strike a compromise on anything.
The Thomas Jefferson page has a long history of similar abuse. At one time the Slavery and Hemings topics took up some five pages on that page and there was an overwhelming consensus to fix that. I was accused of being "racist" by one editor for trying to remedy that also. Most of the editors who gave their support then have since left the page, and not because of me but because they grew weary of the constant debate.
All of my recent edits regarding slavery and Hemings are well sourced and have been tempered with compromise and added with consensus. IMO this hearing is just an end run to get around that by user Binksternet who is bent on using cherry picked opinions from selected historians to represent the topic rather than simply stating the established historical facts with fair mention of varying opinions from the 100's of historians.
Regarding this latest accusation of racism, this is yet another cheap attempt to stigmatize my participation. I indeed referred to Julian Bond, head of the NAACP and who is now the board member at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, an org that is used as a source for various statements on the Jefferson page, and which I have even used as a source for other statements. I accused Bond, and Swann-Wright, on the talk page, of bias and linked to their pictures at the Thomas Jefferson foundation, not because they are African American but because of their social and political involvements. Bond has a long history of racially divisive comments and it is my observation that they are using the Thomas Jefferson Foundation for their own agenda.
My central position has always be neutral and that we include facts first, per an encyclopedia, and mention the varying opinions by historians past and present, yet this is not good enough for user Binksternet. There are 100's of sources for Jefferson so we can not be cherry picking opinions from a few select authors, as has been attempted before and recently.
I am also for a temporary topic ban, but one that does not single me out, until tempers cool down, as this racially charged topic has dominated the Jefferson talk page for too long and has kept the Jefferson article in a constantly changing and unstable condition. -- Gwillhickers 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am also asking for a resolution about how the lede should be configured, as this has been central to all the heated debate here. As I've indicated, the Hemings topic has been given a paragraph of coverage in the lede. Banning the topic alone is not going to avert future problems. The cause of the problem needs to be addressed. All the topics in the lede, i.e.established historical facts like the Declaration of Independence, the Louisiana Purchase, etc, are covered with one sentence -- yet the Hemings topic, a theory no less, is covered with a paragraph with added details and commentary about opinions from historians, etc. This brings up undue weight issues and summary in the lede issues. I ask that the proper authorities here come forward and make resolutions that everyone must follow. -- Gwillhickers 22:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Good for you!! It's high time someone stood up and tried to restore some balance to the issue of slavery. For too long now, all we've heard are the bad things about slavery, while all the good stuff have been ignored or actively suppressed. We need someone like you to insure that our coverage of slavery is as fair and balanced as possible. Well done!!

(Can we please topic ban this person?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has said there is any "good stuff" about slavery, only that the topic be treated with objectivity in regards to Jefferson who apparently you know little about. Your false statement and sarcasm only typifies the behavior some individuals must resort to to get over in a debate about such sensitive issues. Thanks for addressing the issue with such 'maturity'. -- Gwillhickers 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Then why -- before I made you aware that I was being sarcastic -- do you thank me on my talk page for my comment? If you don't believe that there's anything good about slavery, why did you thank me for saying it? You did ask for an explanation of why I asked for you to be topic banned, because that confused you, but you did not take me to task for my ersatz pro-slavery remarks -- those you seemed OK with. This leads me to believe that you are indeed, as speculated here, a wolf in sheep's clothing -- or, to be more precise, a racist masquerading as someone concerned about "balance." That's the kind of stance taken by some of the less foaming-at-the-mouth Holocaust deniers - "I'm just trying to set the record straight."

Well, Wikipedia is not here for you to right great wrongs, especially when there's nothing particularly wrong about exposing the essential nature of slavery, and nothing to "right", no "balance" which isn't despicable to civilized people. We don't need people who cannot put their personal point of view aside and edit neutrally, especially when that point of view is as vile as that of a racist. Since you asked, that's why you should be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a general thank you but rest assured I at first thought you were referring to some of the good things that were done for slaves. Apparently you find this prospect amazing. All my potentially controversial edits on the Jefferson page have been made with compromise. No one is attempting to 'right past wrongs', just that the topic be told in a neutral and fair manner pointing out Jefferson struggled with the idea of slavery and made many concessions to improve the lives of slaves and made many attempts in his life to oppose it -- starting with the Declaration of Independence. Some editors, and apparently you, would like to erase that part of the history entirely. I have made no edits that come close to warranting that I be topic banned. This noticeboard affair is just an end run by the OP editor who couldn't get his way, and even refused to abide by compromises and consensus for various statements that were restored to the article (they were there for the longest time to begin with). Now you know. -- Gwillhickers 05:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to deflect here. Jefferson, for all his genius, was a man of his time and place, but the subject here is you and your behavior, not Jefferson's. You say you are not a racist, but your edits and commentary belie that. You need to be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I've always stressed -- Jefferson in his time and place and all the realities he had to deal with. As for my "behavior", there's not one thing I've said or done that is "racist". My observation of Bond's behavior and long history of racially divisive remarks was and is warranted. I've also compared slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean to the U.S., per Jefferson in particular, in the hopes of bringing some perspective to the biography -- not as any sort of excuse for slavery. For you or anyone to try and spin it into anything else is vindictive and simply wrong. -- Gwillhickers 07:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Gwillhickers was not aware that Beyond Ken was being saracastic with his comment above. Beyond Ken saracastically said that Gwillhickers was attempting to "restore some balance to the issue of slavery. For too long now, all we've heard are the bad things about slavery, while all the good stuff have been ignored or actively suppressed. We need someone like you to insure that our coverage of slavery is as fair and balanced as possible. Well done!!" Of course, most editors understood that Beyond Ken was being sarcastic, however, Gwillhickers actually went on Beyond Ken's talk page and thanked him for these comments. This concerns me, as this indicates that Gwillhickers actually supports this belief. "Hi Beyond My Ken, Thanks for your comments at the Noticeboard!." I am unsure of the process, but I believe that there are already the necessary votes to topic ban this person from the pages noted above. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk about "confrontational". As I said, this was a general thank you and a request for clarification as I saw the apparent sarcasm but assumed good faith and asked for clarification. You make statements about the debate spilling over to a talk page, which we were already informed about, and then turn around and drag the entire discussion, such that it was, a couple of sentences, here at the noticeboard. Now you're trying to twist it into something that says I think slavery was a good thing. Unbelievable. This is yet another example of the malicious underhanded tact that has been resorted to, not only here, but on the Jefferson talk page where you've attempted similar sniping. And I like to think it takes more than just votes to ban (censure) anyone from a topic but actual reasons that stand up to objective scrutiny. I can only hope that those in charge here can see past the sort of sniping and race baiting that has been resorted to here. Well, if anything, you've demonstrated why there is so much arguing and disagreement on the Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• A general thank you to someone who says and I quote "we've heard are the bad things about slavery, while all the good stuff have been ignored or actively suppressed. We need someone like you to insure that our coverage of slavery is as fair and balanced as possible. Well done." It's a serious problem for you not to see that it's a serious problem for you to agree with a statement like that. Consider this our last conversation. I will no longer respond to you directly, as it is becoming far too contentious. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the above sarcastic quote is not mine, and that Joe Bob is, once again, contentiously trying to make it seem that it is. This less than honest sniping needs to stop. -- Gwillhickers 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am not trying to work in any underhanded fashion here. Instead, I am making a very public statement about your disruption in an effort to fix the problem. If I were simply trying to win a content dispute everyone here would quickly see through the deception, and my reputation would suffer greatly. I value my reputation here on Wikipedia, so the fact that I am taking this major step at ANI is a gamble for me, a risk I am taking because of the seriousness of the problem I am reporting. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• You have taken the simple observations I have made and tried to pass them off as racist. That is very underhanded. The article was stable for quite some time and all I attempted to do was return it to its prior state, so your apparent concern for disruptive behavior is questionable, esp since on several occasions you abandoned the discussion and went ahead and made edits anyway. Every point brought to your attention (political realities faced by Jefferson, sources, etc) was ultimately ignored by you as you couldn't refute the points made. That is why you are here and for no other reason. -- Gwillhickers 00:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers' posts removed from the original post where they were inserted disruptively. Binksternet 00

12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the RFCU

Ebanony and Parkwells were largely responsible for bloating the section to an absurd five pages in length and since then they have harbored a resentment for my calling attention to the problem, establishing a consensus, and fixing the problem, The reason Ebanony's complaint at the NOR noticeboard was ignored is becuase it was a basless accusation and simply an act of revenge for my bringing attention to a problem that needed to be fixed. You (Binksternet) are behaving in a similar fashion, simply because things have not gone your way. -- Gwillhickers 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Julian Bond and Dianne Swann-Wright comment

Making the legitimate observations I have made is not racist, at all. You (Binksternet) are simply playing on feelings of racism and trying to rally support that you couldn't get on the Thomas Jefferson page. If anything, your behavior and methods should be called into question. -- Gwillhickers 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding observations about slavery at the U.S. article talk page

This is really getting ridiculous. I pointed out that the life expectancy for slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean was about seven years, compared to the United States were slaves lived out their lives and were able to multiply. This is "racist" comment?? This is typical of the distortions you (Binksternet) have made on my behalf in your underhanded effort to goad me away from participation on the Thomas Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : That's not quite how you worded it. However, even if you attempted to word it the way you just did, you're essentially saying "Come on now, it wasn't that bad." Wikipedia is not the place for statements like this. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Come on now..."?? Now you're putting words into my mouth. We were discussing the treatment of slaves. The analogy was made to point out that slavery in the U.S., and in particular regarding Jefferson, was dealt with in an entirely different manner than it was in Africa, Brazil and other parts of the world. When someone closely examines the history and the manner in which Jefferson treated slaves they see a very different picture than the one you would apparently have us believe. -- Gwillhickers 05:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another unsourced statement. Please provide your sources. I would like to read about how Jefferson's slaves (excluding the Hemings, who clearly had a special place on Monticello), were treated in relation to the treatement of slaves in Brazil and Africa. Again, these are blanket statements that need to be sourced. I say this b/c you asked me on the other talk page to be specific with you. I am also not insinuating that editors cannot discuss things without sourcing every detail, but you are making blanket statements to bolster your argument. These statements should be sourced.Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe bob just gave us another good reason to keep Gwhillickers around. Did you check Ira Berlin’s Many thousands gone: the first two centuries of slavery in North America (2000)? In his first chapters he contrasts the first sugar slavery regimes under Spanish and Portuguese and those of the English in sugar and tobacco in North America. Later, Berlin documents variations among slave masters labor relations with their slave workforce, both in the American South and within the same crop cultivations, I regret the volume is not readily at hand for a page cite. ----- I have at hand only Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery American Freedom: the ordeal of colonial Virginia, (1975) p. 301, slaves on Barbados plantations had to be replaced at a rate of about 6 percent per year, while those in Virginia retained their health and multiplied because of “the less strenuous work of cultivating tobacco, as opposed to sugar”. --- Morgan makes no particular conclusion about any moral superiority being ascribed to the Virginian tobacco plantation masters per se, only that there were variations in the slavery regime which directly affected mortality, which is Gwhillickers point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert': Your point is that Morgan made "no particular conclusion." That is not the case with Gwillhickers. He is making conclusions and presenting them as factual, sometimes without sourcing his statemenets. Joe bob attacks (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, all edits in the article are well sourced. You are only sniping at one item, "coached", on the talk page that came up in discussion. This has been addressed, yet you're still repeating that same point over and again, and then turn around and try to make an issue about why the debate is "contentious". You say one thing, but your actions are telling us a different story. -- Gwillhickers 21:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TVH, thanks for providing some background. Joe Bob has been and continues to grasp at straws at points made on the talk page, assuming wrongly that I just go along and make things up on the fly. Most of us are well read on Jefferson and over the years our knowledge comes into play during discussion. No editor sources a discussion unless asked to do so in terms of making the statement in the actual article. This is just an other example of the measures used to sandbag opposing discussions and goad me away from topics -- and now they are being employed here. Odly, he only targets my discussions, not edits made in the actual article, which are well sourced and often entered with compromise. This sort of sniping and lack of integrity has become typical not only on the Jefferson pages, but now here. -- Gwillhickers 18:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent Observation

I have had dealings with Gwhillickers before on 19th Century ships and I've always found him to be helpful, collegial and knowledgable.

I've also just spent an hour reading the entire talk page discussion. I have to comment that there is something to what Gwhillickers is saying. Binkersnet and others use the racism allegations against him to justify not listening to some quite reasonable comments on content. The central theme I got from reading a lot of the discussion is that there is not universal acceptance of the alleged fathering of children by Thomas Jefferson with one of his slaves, which he does back up with sources. There has been an attempt to portray only part of the debate as universally accepted to be the truth, when there remains a range of opinions both for and against in the literature. WP:NPOV requires we reflect the entire range of opinions but IMHO there appears certain contributors who only include those they agree with. The article has also suffered historically from an obsession with the issue around this allegation. The article clearly has not followed WP:NPOV and has given WP:UNDUE prominence to this allegation. For example this statement in the lead:

“ Historical research, bolstered by DNA tests showing that a Jefferson family member was the father of one of Hemings' sons, has led to a consensus among most modern historians that widower Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. ”

This is untrue, there isn't a consensus from what I've read and Gwhillickers is correct to point this out. I'm sure someone will shortly post a quote by someone who says pretty much that (I read that this statement is "sourced" so who am I to question it). I would advise that person to learn to differentiate WP:FACT from WP:OPINION. On this Gwhillickers is correct, "Presenting a self serving opinion (i.e.most people agree with us!) as a fact is the worst sort of POV "

Equally Gwhillickers is not blameless, the remarks about members of the NAACP and TJF weren't needed in the discussion. The discussion gets lost in the hysteria about comments he made about members of the NAACP and TJF, who claim that the DNA evidence is conclusive. Though ironically some of those making the allegations of racism dismiss Gwhillickers on the basis they're "right wing". I would characterise the remark that the TJF has focused too much on slavery as another. Whilst the former clearly isn't racism, the latter can well be taken for it. This really should have been argued on the basis of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, whilst separating WP:FACT from WP:OPINION.

There is far too much shouting, too much WP:IDHT and I will be blunt in saying there are few on that page qualified to edit in such a controversial area. Really a very large WP:BOOMERANG should be headed in the direct of the OP on this thread because their conduct has been far from ideal. And to be even more blunt, the whole thread seems to be about removing the opinion of an editor expressing the need for a range of views.

I would observe a one sided topic ban is clearly not warranted at this juncture, however, this cannot be allowed to continue to fester in the way that it has. I would propose instead that a topic ban is delivered on a number of the editors at the page, as none appear to be able to discuss the matter calmly. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing.--MONGO 19:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus and it is reliably sourced. If you think there is not, then could you point to any academic book or article that disputes the claim. TFD (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• TFD, this is far from a clear comment. There are plenty of sources on both sides of the fence as has been pointed out to you and others. All you are doing here is demonstrating a point WCM makes above. -- Gwillhickers 19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• WCM, thank you for your objective and neutral assessment. I think a general and temporary topic ban for everyone, on the Jefferson page, might be in order until tempers cool down. This attempt to censure one side of the debate, currently represented by myself mostly, reflects badly on the spirit of Wikipedia altogether. -- Gwillhickers 19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Even if you were right, it does not give you license to continue arguing your one point for years when virtually every other editor has rejected it. TFD (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's a very bull-headed comment. You might want to read it again because I very much doubt you meant to say that.--v/r - TP 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• TFD, the point is argued only when an editor makes an unfounded claim ("fringe", "not published by mainstream", etc), claims that have been addressed and refuted and which you continue to ignore. You are only demonstrating why the debate drags on. I have never initiated the debate about sources, and there are plenty of other editors who agree with my assessment, so I don't appreciate your attempt to portray the situation as 'me against the world'. This ongoing attempt to distort and misrepresent my participation is quite less than honest and needs to stop. -- Gwillhickers 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• As an American history professor, I have to say that there has been consensus on this subject for a while. I say that I'm an American history professor, because I do believe this qualifies me to speak on this subject. If I were speaking on an engineering matter, it helps if someone is an engineer. I am not saying this to disparage others. To the matter at hand, these sources have been presented and are even reflected in other wikipedia pages. There is always going to be disagreement with regard to history, but POV pushing minor ideas for almost three years is a problem. I'm about to bow out of this discussion, as I only edit occasionally. I returned to this page after a 2 year absence to find that Gwillhickers was continuing to POV push. That's why I'm here. I enjoy returning to occasionally contribute, but if I'm topiced banned, along with Gwillhickers then I will accept it. I think it's more important to topic ban this particularly disruptive editor than for me to contribute. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've mentioned that you are a history professor several times now and have arrogantly referred to the rest of us as "hobbyist historian"(s). In any case, after being away for two years you have evidently missed much. I am not the only one standing on this side of the fence, and many of the debates are warranted, so your obvious inference that they are not is not helping to resolve matters. You're only repeating points that have already been addressed and refuted. There is a wide body of differing opinion out there, as was pointed out to you several times now and you are again demonstrating how arguments are initiated and drag on with this repetitious account here. To be fair with my comments, I appreciate your willingness to participate in the topic ban. I am hoping that such measures aren't really necessary, at present it appears so, and that cooler minds will prevail for all of us concerned. -- Gwillhickers 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points.

1. The fact that you're choosing to continue this discussion here shows you're all engaged in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and can't let this go. Continue and you'll only convince the community I'm right and you all should be topic banned.

2. TFD I'm astounded that someone of your experience doesn't get it. No you haven't sourced a fact, you've sourced an opinion, which you're stating is a fact. You can definitely source several historical sources making that statement (and you failed to note I did make the point) but it will never make it a fact. Equally to make that statement in the authoritive wikipedia voice ignores those elements of the literature that disagree.

3. The lede is supposed to reflect the article and the actual core part of the article does explain it rather better. This is a classic example of WP:LEDE fixation.

4. I would suggest the editor referring to himself as a "history professor" ceases to argue from WP:Authority, it doesn't add to the discussion and seems more designed to close it down without a debate. BTW I am a rocket scientist, does that make my view more authorative?

5. All of you need to read and understand WP:CONSENSUS all over again, you don't have a consensus you have a group of editors agreeing with each other to ignore the views of others on a basis that isn't sustainable under wikipedia's policies.

On a final note, it is to my shame, that I came very close to not posting the above comment. And do you want to know why, its because I was concerned that in commenting I would also be labeled a racist. This is the chilling effect of allegations like this. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"And do you want to know why, its because I was concerned that in commenting I would also be labeled a racist." I felt the same way.--v/r - TP 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not at all sure what Wee Curry Monster is arguing here. So "you all should be topic banned" How nonsensical is that? What does "you all" mean. "No you haven't sourced a fact, you've sourced an opinion, which you're stating is a fact." What exactly does that mean? The only way to show consensus of historians is to either read everything written and somehow tabulate it (which could be construed as OR) or to find authoritative voices who say 'there is a consensus'. Also the question of whether it is a historical fact that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children is quite separate from the question of whether there is a consensus of historians that who have the opinion that he did (though obviously we would hope that history and historians are consistent with one another). It remains unclear to me what "fact" and what "opinion" you are referring to. It must be remembered that this is a pretty recent turn-around of opinion, so older literature will obviously reflect the pre-DNA POV. And yes, its possible, if you really really want to, to say some other Jefferson relative might have fathered her children, because, well, we don't have 100% proof or video surveillance evidence. You say "you don't have a consensus you have a group of editors agreeing with each other to ignore the views of others on a basis that isn't sustainable under wikipedia's policies." But what "policies" are those? The views of some editors get "ignored" all the time in line with policies, and quite properly, when they try to push fringe sources or overstate the significance of a minority position. Paul B (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I presumed you're familiar with WP:FACT and WP:OPINION? And this isn't a WP:FRINGE opinion, I am well aware of the difference. There is plenty of dissenting opinion in the literature; its in the article and the lede doesn't reflect the article

The way things stand I would definitely suggest both sides of this polarised discussion are topic banned, they're both exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This [54] posting is described by you as a racist [55], it wasn't, the assertion is made that is was repeatedly and its used as a pretext for ignoring the subsequent comments. Can I ask if you reviewed the talk page, or just the diffs above. Once I had done the latter the initial impression I had proved to be misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WCM: I cannot speak for the current article, but Wikipedia does make representations about "most historians" in our articles, see Academic consensus:

• Smithsonian Museum
• American President: A Reference Resource from the University of Virginia
• United States National Park Service Jefferson Biography
• Monticello
• Britannica

But I am no longer involved there so you are welcome to deal with it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ASW, no one has said we shouldn't mention "most historians" only that other significant viewpoints get fair representation.
Quote from WP policy and Jimbo:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints.
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.

This was done on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Btw, the NPS article doesn't say anything about "most historians" regarding Hemings, but your point still stands. -- Gwillhickers 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WCM' you are right, the debate is getting out of hand. Unless someone makes another distorted accusation on my behalf I am willing to bow out at this point, but it's very difficult to sit still for some of the stuff being tossed around here. -- Gwillhickers 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As discussed previously "most" does not mean "all". Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link on WP:RS, I was unaware of that aspect of policy. Yes I saw that list on the talk page but also those below.

These are simply dismissed in talk as "right wing", so the sources the editors find supports the position they want are OK but not others. Really that isn't how wikipedia works is it? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem there is of course going through and evaluating those sources, but the prerequisite is do any of them directly -- expressly -- deny the RS statement "most historians." And Gwill has been repeatedly asked to identify any that expressly argue that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You're asking to prove a negative. "Prove to me that someone said that no one said this..."--v/r - TP 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No. We are trying to represent what the RS directly say, not what they do not say. (see WP:NOR)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're trying to say that some RS's claim a majority opinion which gives you leeway to ignore others. So essentially, the "trump card" is for any RS to claim majority opinion whether that is true or not. Is that something we need to go ahead and add to WP:RS? It seems to me that it would be a primary source on it's own opinion, to be honest. "We believe this, and everyone else agrees because we said so" is essentially what you're saying the RS says and that we need to abide by it.--v/r - TP 22:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I plead guilty to trying to faithfully follow what the sources directly say. If there is a consensus to reject all those sources, just because we know everything better than they do based on our own reading of sources that don't directly address the RS, count me and NOR out.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If a source makes a claim about its own position, is that specific claim third party or primary?--v/r - TP 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If I may observe some sources are followed but others that are contradictory are not. TParis makes a good point about sourcing claims of academic consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

All sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary state their own propositions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If we have sources that say A and sources that say B, and also have reliable sources that say that A is the majority view, then indeed that is what we report. No matter how many B sources we find ourselves (and in this case B sources are very limited in recent scholarship). In order to not report that A is the majority view, we would need to not just have B sources, but to have sources that claim that B is the majority, or at least that explicitly deny that A is the majority. This is exactly the difference between OR (we count A and B and do our own analysis) and following WP:RS, hopefully written by people that have a good overview of the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note quite, here have sources that say A and opine theirs is the majority view and sources that say B. What we don't have is a peer review of academic literature that state A is the majority view based on a good overview of the literature. Worse the opinion of A is used to ignore B. Even if the ideal situation you describe had existed you would not suggest we do not include B, even if it were a WP:MINORITY opinion unless it could be accurately dismissed as a WP:FRINGE. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just linking policy and guidekline pages you've already linked does nothing to advance your POV or make it any more coherent. You have not even responded to the question. A "peer review of academic literature" is not required and is in fact a meaningless concept in this field. Such things really do not exist in historical studies. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Most historians" does not ignore that there are other historians. Moreover, the Smithsonian source was taken to the RS notice board a last year and considered RS for "most historians." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I only edit occasionally and yes this is my profession. I did not know it was inappropriate to mention this, as I have done a great amount of research in this field. I have come to this page to discuss what I have seen as pervasive POV pushing. Perhaps I am too invested in this, which is why I will remove myself from this debate after this post. And I have to disagree. There has been significant peer review and consensus on these topics. But before I bow out, I wanted to make a clarification that neither myself or other editors have called Gwillhickers right wing and we are not here because of his views, but because of his persistent and pervasive POV pushing. With regard to consensus, I will be glad to provide a plethora of sources that constitute a majority view if needed to bolster the point that Gwhillhickers is in fact pushing minor ideas and fringe sources. If anyone would like me to pull this together please see my talk page. I will no longer visit this page, as I am removing myself from this debate. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We need 3rd party independent sources that claim A is the majority. We do not allow A to claim itself as the majority. A is a primary source on itself.--v/r - TP 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are sources which tell us what is the majority view about whether Jefferson had a child by Hemings. I put one of those into the TJ talk page: Kenneth Morgan's Slavery in America: A Reader and Guide, University of Georgia Press, 2005, ISBN 0820327921. Morgan is a British historian at Brunel University in London. His book is "designed specially for undergraduate course work" so it is a general survey. Morgan writes, "Scientific evidence, based on DNA studies done in 1998, has shown that rumours about the intimate connections of Jefferson and Hemings were true beyond reasonable doubt (see Document 3)." At Document 3 Morgan cites three studies. French historian François Weil writes in his book Family Trees that the 1998 DNA tests were challenged by some, but a "majority of observers... accepted the very high probability that Jefferson was the father of several of Sally Heming's children."[56] The fact that objective British and French historians have recently assessed the literature and come up with "beyond reasonable doubt" about the paternity link between Jefferson and Hemings tells me that this is the mainstream view. Gwillhickers would have us believe that his list of authors who question the connection have a strong position; they do not. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is completely nonsensical, and is not in line with any policy. Anyone expert enough to express an opinion about the consensus of scholars in a field will, almost by definition, be themselves an expert, and almost certain to have a view. We do not demand a third party of non-climate scientists to say that Global Warming is the consensus view, since the "third party", by your defintion would be a non-expert, and thus not a reliable source. We do not need a non-expert on Shakespeare to say that the view that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is fringe. We need experts on Shakespeare, by definition. Your demand is impossible to reconcile with policy, since it would mean that we would value the view of, say, a journalist with no expertise, over experts in the field because he/she would be a "third party". Paul B (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My view is completely in line with policy. It's called WP:PRIMARY. Just because the burden of evidence is high doesn't make it wrong. Any single person claiming academic consensus should be a high burden. Else, as I've said, you create an academic "trump card" where the first academic to claim they have majority view wins.--v/r - TP 12:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your view is wholly inconsistent with policy for the reasons I have stated. WP:PRIMARY is utterly irrelevant. It says nothing whatever about this issue; WP:RS/AC is the relevant policy, which makes no such fantastical and impossible demands. There can never be no "independent" third-party in such cases for reasons I explained and which, unsurprisingly, you have not responded to other than by the tired expedient of sticking in a "WP:xyz" link hich says nothingh whatever about the issue at hand. Your last sentence is amusing. Claiming one is in the majority is not an argument. I'm surprised that you seem to think that academics think they can "win" a debate by saying they are in a majority! They may very well wish to claim to be in a minority, if they want to assert precedence for innovation. Or perhaps you think they are trying to "win" the right to have their views identified as mainstream on Wikipedia. You seem to be trying to apply ideas used to assess medical and other scientific literature to the humanities, but there is no such thing as systematic "reviews of previous studies" in history. Ideas enter the mainstream in a less systematic way. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." When it comes to discussing their own viewpoint, they are directly involved. They can talk from a disconnected viewpoint on the subject, but when speaking about their own conclusions they are primary. I've lost patience with your brick wall so I'm just going to ignore your comments from here on out.--v/r - TP 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yours is the brick wall, since you seem to unaware of how nonsensical this view is. As has been pointed out by others all sources are "primary sources", in your (mis)interpretation of the concept, for any conclusions they reach, including the assertion that there is a consensus, or a majority view. Inevitably, it will be their own viewpoint that there is a consensus. Almost inevitably the source, if it is reliable, will be from an expert who is therefore likely to share that consensus. The consensus of experts on Shakespeare is that he wrote Hamlet. The experts who assert this, and who are quoted on the Shakespeare authorship question page, also believe that he did. According to you, that makes them "primary sources", and, apparently, makes their view inadmissible. This would mean that virtually every page that quotes high quality academic sources on the topic of academic consensus unacceptable. This is Alice in Wonderland logic. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. We have several reliable sources that report explicitly on the overall state of the academic discussion. These are tertiary sources with respect to the underlying issue (TJ and SJ and their offspring). They are secondary with respect to the academic debate (who says what about TJ and SJ and their offspring, and is there a consensus). If you declare them as "primary", because (of course) they make statements, and hence are primary with respect to their own content, then all sources are primary, and the whole hierarchy of sources collapses. This is not and never has been a useful interpretation, not even on Wikipedia, where there are some idiosyncrasies with respect to the terms. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I've said Stephan. Sources secondary to the viewpoints themselves are exactly what I am saying we need to determine a majority viewpoint.--v/r - TP 14:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The University of Virginia, the Smithsonian, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation are all well known independent academic publishers, expert in Jefferson and History. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

TP, I disagree. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. If I say the evidence shows that Jefferson was the father, that is an opinion. If I say most historians agree, that is a statement of fact. Academic articles undergo a peer review process which checks whether or not the facts presented are correct. If someone writes for example that most historians believe the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc., that is a factual inaccuracy, regardless of what the writer believes or what the truth happens to be. If someone who believed that Jefferson was not the father wrote an article that said most historians thought he was not the father, peer-review would not allow it because it is false. Of course no academic articles or books have been published that claim Jefferson was not the father because it is not possible to make a case based on available evidence that he was not. In summary, while it may not be a proved fact that Jefferson was the father, it is a proved fact that most historians believe he was. And Gwillickers has argued against that for years, yet has failed to provide a single peer-reviewed source that says otherwise. Instead he provides a link to pictures of dark-skinned historians and says, look at them, how can they be unbiased. Smeat75, no. This appears to be his only issue in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the case, he made a comment you and others presumed was based on the race of the individuals, which he later clarified was based on opinions they expressed. You all then poked him for a month trying to get something intemperate out of him, then posted here shouting he was a racist, ban him. ANI doesn't exist to help you win a content dispute by topic banning an editor whose opinions you don't like. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers wrote, "If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF."[57] If you "look at" the links, both appear to be African American. Gwillickers later said that he meant the NAACP is a "leftist liberal" "pressure group" that "dictates policy" for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the organization that manages Monticello. What are we supposed to be looking at on the link to Swann-Wright, which does not say she is a member of the NAACP? TFD (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So you assume he must mean to look at the pictures and he must intend for us to notice that, indeed, they aren't Caucasian. And based on your assumption, which seems to be all that is required here, we are meant to call this person a racist?--v/r - TP 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, look past that then. On what basis is it appropriate to impugn Dianne Swann-Wright with ad hominem on a Wikipedia talk page. It is an embarrassment for Wikipedia to have such a thing occur, as well as being against Wikipedia policy. It can only dismay anyone who cares if Wikipedia is taken with respect, it does not give. We do not want to treat Swann-Wright who has done nothing wrong, who could herself be excellent knowledgeable Wikipedian, with such baseless disregard as to her reputation. Even if she never would contribute, it is still reprehensible. I, for one, cannot be any part of it, and I am guessing there are others like me. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That also makes no sense. You want to ban someone because they might have offended the subject of an article? I guarantee that I've made my opinion of Sue Gardner obvious and she both has an article about her and edits here. By your reasoning, I should be banned? We arn't a project of 'everyone believes the same thing'. I can get on board with banning someone over racism, or even in the case of Dianne sexism as well if it exists, but absolutely not just because we might offend someone.--v/r - TP 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not about you, so whatever you have done is irrelevant. I said nothing about offense. Baseless denigration of living people is against policy. And no, that is not the only reason for the topic ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct you Alan, in this case the guy just didn't out of the blue decide to criticise those people, he did so in response to having a bunch of his sources criticised and discarded for being written by people who were "right wing". It was therefore done in response to similar criticism. That doesn't make it right but I don't hear you criticising those who were the catalyst for the response. You do no one any favours for criticising this response but not what prompted it. BOTH comments were inappropriate, there is bad behaviour on both sides. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If this were about others, then it would appropriate to comment about that. Making it even more perplexing is Gwillhickers has used the Thomas Jefferson Foundation as a source. Julian Bond, for example, was never proposed as a source by anyone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you prove my point in a way I could never have demonstrated, classic WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM. You assert the poking that caused the comment can't be discussed, 'cos this ain't about them. Really, did you just say that? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that. Did you read what I wrote? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan - this thread, like all threads, are about the entire issue. The scope is not limited to what the OP chooses for us. Give Wikipedia:BOOMERANG a read. Specifically: "A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."--v/r - TP 12:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not say this isn't about me, although no one has said that it is. But, yes something like it is done all the time, it is also often judged to be deflection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers contributions

• Question. I gather Jefferson is a hero for Gwillhickers. Does Gwillhickers contribute usefully to the Jefferson article on aspects other than the "did he have children with one of his slaves" matter? If so, it seems a pity to topic ban him from Jefferson altogether.Smeat75 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Gwhillickers has made contributions on the Jefferson page in a collegial way as has been attested by adversaries above, and they have persisted over many subsequent edits relative to DNA, slavery, illustrations, bibliography, profession, captions, marriage, citations and formatting, Monticello, Louisiana Purchase, University of Virginia and others. These are apart from Talk Page answering personal attacks on his sources by making personal attacks on other's sources, which I believe is not productive on anyone's part.

Binksternet pointed out above, "Gwillhickers was recently Editor of the Week at the Editor Retention Project. He does a lot of work on 18th and 19th century naval battles." Slaves were rented for sailors in the US Navy both in the Revolution and in the War of 1812, GWs time period. In Black Jacks: African American Seamen in the Age of Sail, W. Jeffrey Bolster at U. of New Hampshire notes no American slave accepted the offer to be a free British seaman in the prisoner of war camps. The proposed GW ban on the subject of slavery would also inappropriately interfere with his possible contributions in naval history at Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers has made useful and constructive edits to the article, certainly. One of them was a slight trim from May 2013 in response to a talk page request. What we have to decide here is whether his disruptive talk page behavior and revert warring in the article overbalance his positive contributions. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the topic ban proposal above, the edit warring charge was not held to apply to Gwhillickers. I have no information to overturn the previous holding, and that is not the focus of this proposal. Rather Gwhillickers now finds his sources personally attacked and he replies in kind on the Talk Page, and some then some object to the same inappropriate tactics they use being turned on their own sources by Gwhillickers. Now Gwhillickers is accused as a racist for pointing out variations in Virginia's mid-1700s and early-1800s slavery regimes on different plantations and comparatively internationally.

As his fundamental positions are supported for a quarter century of scholarship on the subject of slavery and the South and Virginia from Morgan (1975) to Berlin (2000), taking things personally is not good for Wikipedia collegiality, it seems to me. Rather modern scholars or WP editors need to consult the literature on a given topic first, with the seriousness as though they were pursuing a thesis or dissertation. Gwhillickers is acknowledged as being well read in the historiographic literature, and contrarian to the most recent modern scholars. That alone is not reason enough for banning on the topics of Thomas Jefferson and slavery as proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers' contributions to this thread

Gwillhickers, you may want to ration your responses in this discussion. By my count, you have posted 30 times, about half of them after you said you were conditionally "willing to bow out at this point". I'm sorry the conditions have apparently not been fulfilled, and that you find it necessary to keep up such a barrage (wiktionary:barrage, sense 2, 3, and 4). I don't think it's doing the impression of you or your cause any good. And the thread is becoming so bloated there's probably a rapidly diminishing chance that uninvolved editors will be able to face reading it. Less is more. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC).

Just open up an RFC/U if you want a streamlined discussion. I don't see why this was brought to ANI anyways. KonveyorBelt 00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this should never have been brought to ANI. And this is good advice to Gwillhickers, whilst I realise it is difficult to sit on your hands while people are criticising you, responding to everyone leads to the conclusion you have a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Trust me, been there and learned the lesson the hard way. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Julian Bond

For the record, although Gwillhickers states above that Julian Bond is the "head" of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (in his 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC) comment) and elsewhere has said he is on the board. Those claims appear to be false: [58]. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record the link provided seems to indicate that Bond is associated with the TJF and is a member of its "community." I found several sources for a "Monticello Getting Word Board" on which Bond appears to have served. Anyone know what that board is/was? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Seek/Find [59]. Comments from Barger. The implication is that the TJS named the members of that group. which means that "false" appears to ne less correct than "overstatement" here -- "false" implies zero direct connection, which might not be the case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"[A]ppears to be false" does not imply that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Julian Bond Bond is on the Board of Selectors of Jefferson Awards for Public Service.

Ever thought it might be just a simple mistake? Elsewhere he stated correctly he was president of the NAACP. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no speculation on why it happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What was your point here? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

To correct the representation about a living person and an organization. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Which does serve to illustrate how easily a posting in text can be misconstrued, as I (and it would appear Collect) took it to imply you were indicating dishonesty by Gwillhickers. Thank you for clearing that up. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

This section is rapidly descending into a festering boil of allegation and counter allegation. After reviewing the original comments and the talk page discussion it is far from clear the subject of this report made a racist comment as alleged. I've also noted this was done in response to some equally inappropriate comments by the OP denouncing sources on the basis of their origin. Both sides have behaved inappropriately I would suggest. The behaviour on both sides is unlikely to promote consensus building. I have two proposals to lance this boil. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Proposal 1 is for a community topic ban for a period of 3 months for User:Alanscottwalker, User:Binksternet, User:The Four Deuces, User:Joe bob attacks and User:Gwillhickers on all subjects related to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings broadly construed. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As proposer I have to note this is not my favoured option as all are valued contributors. I could support this if they don't agree to mediation on this. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option 2 --v/r - TP 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

All parties agree to participate in a RFC or take the dispute to WP:DRN to request community input on the best means to described the Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings controvery and agree to abide by the outcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support As proposer, I favour WP:DR over community sanctions. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option 1 There are problems in this topic area that span much greater than Gwillhickers. Aside from a couple particularly heated comments from some individuals, it seems to me that everyone is acting in good faith. When parties are acting in good faith, that is a perfect opportunity for WP:DRN to work.--v/r - TP 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Option 1 per TParis. Since everyone has been assuming good faith at the moment, I think I would take this case to WP:DRN. However, I have been uninvolved in the Thomas Jefferson dispute at the moment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

user:Pofka and abuse of non-free media

The user is re-inserting multiple files that fail WP:NFCC on a number of points (#1,3,8,10c). Can an admin please block, and give a lesson in WP:NFC? because they are not listening. Werieth (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User has almost no user talk edits despite more than 60 individual notices about image use on his/her own page. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• CAN I PLEASE GET AN ADMIN TO STEP IN AND ENFORCE NFCC? Werieth (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There are 855 admins. Which one do you want? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---

User Werieth is constantly removing images from Lithuania national basketball team article, without providing any proofs that they really violate any of the WP:NFCC rules. He purely removes images without any discussions or proofs (not even reading the article!). I would call it more as a vandalism than enforcement. Here is my proofs that none of these images violate NFCC:

• Dunking Skullman (logo).jpg is used to identify Lithuanians complicated participation in 1992 Summers Olympics. This logo is important in identification purpose as it was used to raise the funds for Lithuania national team, which almost had no money for international games (widely described in the article). It means that the image is used for "critical commentary when there is no free equivalent available that would adequately describe it" and it is low resolution image.
• EuroBasket 1995 awards ceremony.JPG is used for critical commentary, which is widely described in the article section (Croatians left the awarding ceremony because they wished to show their disappointment in judging during the final game between Lithuania and Yugoslavia). Once again image is low resolution and free equivalent is not possible since it happened long time ago.
• Marciulionis, Kurtinaitis, Sabonis and Chomicius (USSR team, 1988 Summer Olympics).jpg is once again used for critical commentary as Lithuanians were forced to play for Soviet Union national team (widely described in the article). It is a unique historical image as it was made by these four players close person, which means there is no free equivalent available. Image is once again low resolution, compared to the original one.
• Feliksas Kriauciunas.JPG and Frank Lubin EuroBasket 1939.jpg is used to illustrate the subject in question (notable players). Free equivalent cannot be made because Feliksas Kriaučiūnas and Pranas Lubinas have already died. Pofka (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (GMT +2)
  • The players should not be pictured as they have their own articles, and the file usage fails WP:NFCC#3 and 10c on this page. The two awards ceremonies nothing in the pictures are critical. In fact nothing specific to the photos are noted. We dont need photos of them winning or walking out to understand that they won. (See WP:NFCC#1&3) I can continue the breakdown if you want and go into further failures. Werieth (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I said you dozen times: READ THE ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE WRITING ANYTHING. Awarding ceremony picture is used to show Croatians leaving the ceremony by showing their disappointment and support to Lithuanians, which is indeed A CRITICAL COMMENTARY. Pofka (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2013 (GMT +2)
    • NOT ITS NOT. Just referencing the action doesnt need a photo. You do not understand WP:NFCC. The picture is replaceable with text see WP:NFCC#1. Werieth (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It needs a photo when it is a important (CRITICAL) action. Pofka (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2013 (GMT +2)
        • Not according to policy. Werieth (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like there's an underlying content dispute. I recommend that Pofka open discussion threads at Talk:Lithuania national basketball team, explain why the images do meet NFCC, and work to build consensus on including them in the article. Given that it's a fair-use issue, I also suggest that the images should not be added to the article until after consensus is reached on inclusion.

The only administrative action in play here is whether to block either party for edit warring. If this matter is confined to the talk page until consensus is reached, I don't think that will be necessary. Further edit warring, however, may result in block(s) to the offending editor(s). —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

C.Fred the user wont listen [60] and has competence issues. Werieth (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Werieth: I may be assuming a little too much good faith, but that was done before he'd have seen my messages here and at ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar enough with the NFCC criteria to say whether it's a clear enough violation for Pofka to be blocked, so I protected the page. I removed the unfree images though. While I try to avoid picking a side in a content dispute, since there were copyright issues I think it was prudent to err on the side of caution for the protected version. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Werieth, didn't we just talk about this? About how you need to discuss things with people and not edit war with them? And yet, here we are, again, with you edit warring with people without any significant discussion. The only objective criterion that failed here was 10c, which most likely could have been easily remedied if you, y'know, had bothered to take the time to explain what it was. But, as is par for the course with you, you didn't. What is it going to take to get you to figure out that this kind of thing is not okay? A block? I'd rather not block someone who is honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia as you are, but I will if that's what it takes. Do not edit war over this kind of thing (yet) again, or the next time it's a block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • How about admins actually defend WP:NFCC instead of attacking those who enforce it. There are 4 files that clearly do not meet NFCC and 2 that are blatant failures. In this case I was 100% correct, I think your threats make me question your suitability and judgement as an administrator. Werieth (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The point that you keep missing is that you enforce NFCC through discussion, not through unexplained summary removal, because, yet again, the NFCC are for the most part subjective (10c notwithstanding, as that could have easily been fixed had you explained it). Nevertheless, if you question my judgement as an admin, that's fine: if you can find one or two more people who agree, I'll give my bit back and I'll stand for RfA again at some point (actually serious). It's not that big a deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
      • When users refuse to discuss what am I supposed to do? leave the violation? Werieth (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, while reporting them to an appropriate noticeboard. NFCC violations, while they are serious, are not so time-sensitive that they will destroy the encyclopedia if left on an article for a few hours/days. In fact, that is one of the reasons why our NFCC policy is more strict than the actual US fair-use law. Things that fail NFCC are not necessarily copyright violations, as they may still qualify for the legal definition of fair use (as opposed to Wikipedia's definition). Thus, NFCC violations are not urgent in the same way that straightforward copyvios are. Also, in order for them to have refused conversation, they must have been offered conversation, which is something you didn't do in this and other cases. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Werieth, no one questions Writ Keeper's judgment and suitability, not even his mama. You know, I've supported you in the past, in discussions and with administrative actions, but seriously, if I may speak frankly, you really have to chill the fuck out. This is NOT used getting worked up about, and if you don't realize that these are matters of discussion/judgment (even if you're usually right!) then you really need to work on that. And don't come complaining about lack of admin support or whatever--it's not like you filed this days ago and no one has looked at it. Come on now: what you need is friendly admins who are on your side. Don't piss them off without a good reason. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
            • When admins give me absolutely zero support in addressing a chronic abuser of NFCC when a post is created at ANI and bitch at me for making clearly valid NFCC removals I will complain. My judgement of removals and interpretation of policy has been verified many times. Getting crap about not leaving NFCC failures in articles, and that I should just tagged it and discuss it, has about the same success rate as {{Unreferenced}} which is still in articles 7 years later. How about admins actually take NFCC seriously and stop treating it like the black sheep, and ignoring it. (Ive had several posts to WP:AN/RFC outright removed when requesting WP:NFCR closures). So until you know the whole story please wait at throwing stones. Werieth (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
              • And what was the success rate of continuing to revert on this page without discussion? It would appear to be 0 for 14. Edit warring does not work, and is against the rules anyway. Stop trying it. Even if all you do is report immediately to a noticeboard without discussion, that's still better than edit-warring. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
                • Reporting gets no results. In this case I would call it a success. Non-free violations have been removed, and wont be re-added. How about admins actually stepping up, and putting some teeth in WP:NFCC? Werieth (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
                  • I fully support the reasoning on removing the images, but the reasons to remove are not cut-and-dry as to make it an admin action, at least without prior discussion to assess the subjective nature of why they fail NFCC. Admins cannot act on subjective reasoning, and there is actually a process that should have been done (tagging either the images at FFD, or the article for discussion at NFCR) after the removals were reverted once. Once the discussion there concluded with consensus for removal, an admin would have done it. But we as NFCC "enforcers" cannot edit war, nor expect admins to come to the aid to remove, when there is no objective failure of the images and only subjective reasons that haven't been explored yet. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
                    • Actually there where two clear cut about as objective as you can get failures of WP:NFCC#10c. When NFCR has gotten to the point where discussions are just being closed to close them, and not reaching a acceptable/not acceptable decision. And taking at least two months on average to process, especially when its this clear cut, see Black Kite's rationale. That type of in-action is making WP:NFCC almost to the point where it should be marked historical. Werieth (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
                      • NFCC is not black or white, though its grey line is much narrower than other polices. But it does exist. While I agree with you and BK that two of those images were very unlikely to ever meet NFC, there's small possibility that it could be met (for example, the image of the team walking off the podiums might have been one of significant discussion if there were more sources about it. I doubt those stories really exist though and that would have had to be added to keep the image, compared to the arguments of "but the article needs atmosphere!" that were being put forth, but it still remains a subjective measure and not a 3RR exemption to continue to remove. There's only a few limited cases of NFCC that need to be policed fast and hard; the rest, like most of WP, is a matter of consensus and which may come down to no immediate decision. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• @Werieth: Despite reading wp:NFCC, I think that the images are actually justified as Pofka (talk · contribs) said. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • See my post on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Whose? Yours, Pofka's, this page's, or WP:NFCC's talk? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The article talk page. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Some of the images are probably inappropriate but they are all subjective calls, and not exemptions from edit warring (by either side). --MASEM (t) 19:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• All four of the images clearly fail WP:NFCC and should be removed. I have given rationales on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange or dangerous page

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

---

In page User:Deejawwad, there is an image of an identifiable person and other personal data (including real name, age and city in Pakistan) and an atheist userbox. Since atheism is not legal in Pakistan, according to article Irreligion in Pakistan he might face capital punishment. Therefore, I am afraid that that userpage might be just an act of defamation against the person shown in it.

Furthermore, there are several facts that make this page different than a legitimate userpage:

• What the user tells about his work in Wikipedia doesn't match his contributions. It's even self contradictory, since the text contradicts some userboxes.
• Part of the text is copied from User:Moonriddengirl.
• The user has just requested his userpage to be blocked just after he created it. This is not a common practice, but it can be useful to prevent a defamation to be stopped.

I hope I'm just too paranoid.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree there's something odd going on here. The user requests page protection for their userpage, even though there was no vandalism that I could see. User claims they're not an experienced wikipedian, but also claim to be active in copyright concerns. Some of their earliest edits were to template space. Fair bits of userpage are copy-pasta'd from somewhere else. Whoever created this page, it isn't their first go around here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Some random thoughts...

• I don't think the page is dangerous. Pakistan isn't as pure & homogenous as its name suggests; I welcome a bit of diversity and I'm skeptical that local police are going to track down some pseudonymous editor. It's his risk to take, anyway.
• Parts of the userpage seem to have been copied from Moonriddengirl and parts from Alansohn.
• Diving straight into difficult template edits is a sure sign of somebody who's edited before; but that's not a crime.
• I wouldn't be surprised if this is an editor who decided to have a clean start (or something like it) and copied some userpage stuff from an established editor they had met before.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

the question for me is, is the owner of the account the same as the person named/pictured? That's where we have a risk - if this guy is who he says he is, and wants to say he's an atheist, fine, that's his choice. But if this is his enemy, using this page to put him at risk, then that's dangerous. There is a linked twitter account, I wonder if its worth at least asking that account if they are linked to this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We can't verify identity with a twitter account, because a twitter account is just as easy to set up as an en.wikipedia account. Very low level of identity assurance. If you want a higher level of identity assurance then we're getting into the realm of real-world documentation, and I think that's overkill for an account which doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser: Four different accounts all have the same four-sentence chunk of text on their userpage: User:It won't be pretty, User:Anandgad1, User:Deejawwad,and User:Woohookitty. bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't like users copying user pages and I wouldn't mind deletion. But can anyone judge whether those template edits ("PKRConvert") of theirs are worth anything? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• {{PKRConvert}} seems to be a copy & paste from {{INRConvert}}, with a crude search & replace to change the name of the currency. Ditto for the /doc subpage. It's broken, because {{INRConvert}} relied on {{Indian rupee}}, but thanks to the search & replace, Deejawwad's new PKRconvert template is looking for a {{Pakistani rupee}} which doesn't exist. In principle, all this could be fixed if somebody was willing to put in the effort, but right now it's a broken, crudely copied template with zero transclusions. There is a problem here, but it's not Deejawwad's religion (or lack thereof). bobrayner (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Would it be churlish of me to suggest that somebody fond of copy & pasting is likely to have had a run-in with the ever-diligent Moonriddengirl? If that editor then decided to make a fresh start, and made their clean new account look nicer by copying Moonriddengirl's userpage... um, my head hurts. bobrayner (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi guys! Let me clear that I'm not pretending to be someone and Deejawwad is purely my own account. However, since I'm new to this site I wanted to establish myself here and for this, I did a little research about editing wikipedia pages and I also have some experience in html editing that's how I'm familiar with some advanced editing so you shouldn't be worry about "a new wikipedian doing advanced thing". Yeah I accept that I've copied some contents from some random wikipedians in my user page to get an idea of how my user page looks but believe me! I was not trying to impersonate anyone. Most of the information is true however some paragraphs as said above, are copied from random users so that my user page looks pretty lengthy ;-). And if you guys want me to delete those paragraphs, I'll do it!. I agree that I made a template named PKRConvert and copied all of the contents from INRConvert because like Indian rupee there should also be a Pakistani rupee convert template but since I'm a new wikipedian, I tried my level best to make it but was failed. I need some experience and if you guys allow me to make a Pakistani rupee template just like the Indian Rupee, then it would be appreciated. So far as religion is concerned, I think every person should have his rights regarding this and I don't think the government is gonna trace me just after they know that I'm an atheist. Every person has his own choice. I hope all is clear now and guys, thanks for your concern. and please be nice and patient with this New Wikipedian. Deejawwad (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)\

I redirected my userpage to my talk page. So shouldn't be an issue from my end. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 08:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have no interest in kicking an enthusiastic new editor who made a mistake. We all make mistakes (you should see the mess I made when I first started).

• First: Deejawwad, you probably realise by now that just copy & pasting doesn't always succeed. It often leads to copyright problems. Put in a bit more of your own effort, and you'll get much better results.
• If you're sure there's a use for the PKRConvert template, that sounds plausible, so I'll help you get it working. I'll add some pointers so that everyone knows where the new template came from &c.
• Don't worry about religion. (Unless you really want more disputes - articles related to religion, ethnicity, nationality &c can often be a battleground).
• If in doubt, the answer is usually "sources": The stuff you put in articles should reflect what reliable sources say; sources are a great way to resolve disputes; sources are the key to notability if you're trying to write any new articles; and so on. I have a tattoo of WP:V on my arm, although it's hard to keep it updated.

Does that sound reasonable? Does anybody else need anything else? bobrayner (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

IP 50.128.184.140 / User:BruceDavidWilner disruptive edits, persistent NPOV violations and editorializing

This user's edits consist entirely of opinionated commentary on the subject of each article in question, often directly contradicting or mocking the preceding content. While amusing, this user's editorializing was inconsistent with the neutral tone required of an encyclopedia. When confronted by other editors, this user responded with angry personal attacks and accusations of being a paid shill. Requesting administrator intervention to either calm 50.128.184.140 down or stop his/her disruptive edits. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The user asked me about why I made this post, and I responded here. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: This editor has now registered as User:BruceDavidWilner and has identified himself as the computer security professional of that name. Mr. Wilner's resume is quite impressive, but he seems to have a bit of a vendetta against Wikipedia and a rather abrasive personality. I will assume good faith on his part and try to help him become a successful contributor. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Bigpoliticsfan

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

---

Bigpoliticsfan has been spamming requests to WP:RFPP and WP:GAN; despite being warned for both (e.g., [61] and [62]), the behavior continues (e.g. this nomination, to which the nominator has made no significant edits and which has an obvious orange cleanup banner for being out of date). The user refuses to respond to any of the concerns raised at their talk page. Can an admin issue a more official warning here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Editor has responded and agreed to stop spamming these boards. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent anonymous vandal

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

---

This report was inexplicably declined at WP:AIV where Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) suggested that I bring it here. 93.107.165.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) continually inserts factual errors and breaks markup and writes incredibly incoherent things in articles. This is pure vandalism and this user has enjoyed three previous blocks for the same behavior. The most recent block just expired and they are back to a pattern of no constructive edits. Elizium23 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think it's clear enough to block.  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

date format warrior

User:Jojhutton is on a campaign that as much as possible will remove YMD format from wikipedia. I left a polite note on his talk page 1> drawing his attention to WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT, 2> directing him to an alternative script that he could use that would not violate those guidelines, and 3> pointed out that unilaterally changing formats is not working co-operatively with others. Afterwards, he immediately made HUNDREDS more edits removing YMD from articles. I have reverted a few of his edits, but the wider community needs to put the brakes on this. --JimWae (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In many of those cases, as I pointed out, the date formats in the citations were mixed. Many used all three, DMY, MDY, and YYYY. All I did was unify those dates to MDY as these are US specific articles. In any case, the date formats should be unified under a single format, I simply chose the same format that was used within the body of the article for the sake of consistency.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In many cases, the format was already consistently YMD. In NO cases have you changed any dates to YMD. Wiki editors do not get to globally change wikipedia to their preferred format in contravention of wiki guidelines, nor do they get to invent & enforce their own guidelines. Cease & desist, please.--JimWae (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually following wiki guidelines. I'm not on a campaign to remove YMD, only on a campaign to unify dates. Since the articles are US specific and there were a mix of dates used already, I changed them all to MDY. Its within the guideline. I explained this already on my talk page.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you are following only SOME of the guidelines. Guidelines support YMD in references. You are removing them in contravention of WP:DATERET & WP:STRONGNAT & more. The other script I directed you to works very well.--JimWae (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a single diff showing a problematic edit. Then again, I also don't see a single diff showing an edit according to policy. Someone needs to stop forcing us to do the digging ES&L 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For a start, Here is one diff converting an article from YMD to MDY. Here is the one that first alerted me to this behavior, converting an article whose accessdates were fully YMD, after which I posted to his talk page & he next immediately made HUNDREDS of similar edits away from YMD--JimWae (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well for a start, the article at Missouri was not "fully" YMD, nor is it now either since you reverted my date unification attempt. The article still has a mix of date formats which is against the guidelines. Secondly the article at Mexican-American War had the first date inserted as MDY. It was later mostly mixed with DMY when you changed it, noting "consistency". I agree with consistency and therefore the article at Mexican-American War should be made all MDY using the same argument you made at Talk:Missouri#date format and Talk:New York#Date format.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an issue beyond date formats and MOS here. When an editor is questioned about edits, the correct response is not to forge ahead with many other similar edits, but rather to discuss the issue. Earlier today I became aware of this when a similar edit was done to Indiana: [63] I saw no point in this edit and reverted, and was immediately reverted myself with an edit summary that strongly assumed bad faith: [64] On his talk page I was accused of hounding and stalking, though I've had no interaction with this editor for a long time. The Indiana article was on my watchlist, as I do a lot of editing on Indiana articles. So, to me, there is more than just the MOS involved here; it's a behavioral issue. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you want, I can rollback the edits, but I don't really see it necessary to do so. The date format "2006-04-24" is as acceptable as "24 March 2006" or "March 24, 2006". Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

He is still making HUNDREDS of date format changes every day. MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT specifically permit YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates, exempting them from other parts of MOS:DATEUNIFY. WP:DATERET advises against changing established formats, and thus the established accessdate format ought to be kept. An untold number of the hundreds of articles he is editing either are predominantly YMD for accessdates, or entirely YMD. Agreed, it is time-consuming to search each article's edit history to determine which format DATERET supports. He (& quite a few others) are using scripts which are biased against keeping YMD in ANY article, because there is nothing in those scripts that will DATEUNIFY toward YMD, and numerous functions that remove YMD. Perhaps it is the script-authors' opinions that readers & editors are too dumb to handle YMD, so we must not expose them to it? MOSGUIDE says otherwise. The obvious upshot of the proliferation of users of these scripts, if not the clear intent, is the eventual obliteration of YMD from wikipedia, or invitation of edit-wars until exhaustion with anyone who wants YMD to survive their scripts. Having all the accessdates in a YYYY-MM-DD format is actually a benefit to readers & editors alike, making it clear at a mere glance which date is an accessdate & which is a publication date. If all accessdates were to be YMD, there would not be a need to consult the detailed edit history of every article before making the accessdates consistent, scripts could handle the job quite well, and there would be less conflict between editors. (Instead, I see some script-author is still proposing for discussion that EVERY wikipedia article have the same format (either DMY or MDY), with no concern about those who would feel excluded, the same lack of concern for those who do not want YMD excluded.) --JimWae (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I took a look, but admittedly at just a dozen or so articles. It seems to me that most of the small sample were mixed format use, where MDY (and certainly not DMY, as they were US articles primarily) was an appropriate unified format. So, while I became concern with the reference to the number of articles -- can the complainant confirm ... are most of these, as in the small sample I looked at ... as I describe? If so, then most are likely reasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he's recently modified his behaviour since this discussion started. The problem really is people using a script without regard for what the MOS guidelines are. The source of the problem is that the scripts encourage this behaviour by PURPOSELY NOT having any way to unify toward YMD. --JimWae (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

An article's current format being mixed should not become an excuse to wildly use purposely crippled scripts.--JimWae (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• The edits I looked at seemed to be within policy. On the other hand, I didn't like the biased header of this section, nor the tone of some of JimWae's comments. Boomerang might reasonably apply here. --John (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

De-linking of Wikipedia:Using Archive.is a challenged How-To to its RfC

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

---

Resolved

 – Compromise reached equazcion → 01:37, 30 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Lexein (talk · contribs), a major author of Wikipedia:Using Archive.is is adamant in removing[65] hatnote links from the page to an RfC, Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC that challenges its entire appropriateness of encouraging use of Archive.is. The allegation is that Wikipedia:Using Archive.is is unacceptable promotion of a startup web business Archive.is, deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is 24 September 2013. The activity not only promotes the startup web business, but is allegedly making Wikipedia dependent on this web business for link archives, which may later tie advertising to access to sources of Wikipedia content.

At DRV[66] and Wikipedia_talk:Using_Archive.is, Lexein is pushing the view that because Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Using Archive.is closed as keep, that encouragement of the use of Archive.is is legitimate. However, use of MfD for such a policy purpose is expressly forbidden in the MfD instructions and the policy question of legitimacy was outside the purvey of MfD, belonging instead at the onging RfC. (At DRV I have argued that the MfD should be overturned from "keep" to "procedurally closed").

Would others please review, whether the RfC should be linked, and probably assist in properly tagging and advertising the RfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Response by Lexein

I'd like to address several misrepresentations.

1. I'm not a "major author" of WP:Using Archive.is. As can be seen by the edit history I didn't start it, and I had nothing to do with it until 25 September 2013 when I edited as follows:

(Copyedit to remove synth and repetition, and to conform with cited sources, and for tone. Expand and correct refs, date formats by script. Create Copyright and robots.txt section.).

From a readable prose size of 4364 bytes, it went up to 4381 bytes after all the editing by me and others.

2. I did not "de-link" anything, I de-hatnoted improperly biased hatnotes, because:

• Both claimed "policy issues" relating to the Howto which were not in evidence in the RFC, or MFD.
• Both asserted that WP:Using Archive.is was itself the target of discussion at the RFC.
• The first was a misapplied standard template, the second was a handmade banner with misinformation.

Note that nobody at the WP:Archive.is RFC discussed the howto article WP:Using Archive.is. Nobody at the MFD discussed any affect on policy by WP:Using Archive.is, or any effect on the outcome at the RFC. Nobody at the DRV has discussed any policy-related effects, except SmokeyJoe. These facts rendered SmokeyJoe's assertions in hatnotes false, so I believe I justifiably removed them.

3. The view I'm pushing, if any, has nothing to do with "encouragement of the use of Archive.is is legitimate." SmokeyJoe sees "encouragement" where only documentation is present. Nowhere in WP:Using Archive.is is there any literal or implied encouragement to the user to use it. I've made several edits to reduce any possible promo tone, and I made further such edits today before this AN/I was filed. My position which I stated at the RFC and the MFD, and now the DRV is simple: as long as any links to Archive.is exist on Wikipedia, the Howto page should remain. And there's no consensus at the RFC to remove all links to Archive.is.

4. Because the use of Archive.is is under discussion at the RFC, I added a neutral hatnote: "The use of Archive.is is is under discussion at WP:Archive.is RFC", at 23:47, 29 October 2013, 29 minutes before SmokeyJoe filed this AN/I at 00:16, 30 October 2013‎ . Apparently, he did not notice that. I hope this satisfies all concerned. --Lexein (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• The neutral hatnote. I did not notice, sorry. That satisfies my concerns. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26

HiLo48 has recently made several remarks against me on List of Prime Ministers of Australia in which he called me "f*cking stupid", "Lib-loving", "Abbott Fanboy" and "F*cking Moron". As you will see I did nothing to antagonize HiLo48 (I have mostly found him to be quite nice tbh). I edited something which he clearly told me he did not like so I asked him to discuss it with me at the talk page to resolve the issue where most of the attacks occurred. Nobody has seemed to have dealt with HiLo48 over this and I don't see why I don't deserve the same treatment as any other editor on here. Can someone please have a chat with HiLo48, thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Guilty as charged re the naughty words. (And the apology for them.) For the sake of Wikipedia I reserve my right to treat with contempt repeated POV, incompetent and illogical edits from someone who can't even discuss a matter rationally. We must not let editing by incompetent, POV pushing trolls ruin this encyclopaedia. Had there not been such appalling contributions from this whinger, my response would not have happened. If anyone thinks sanctioning me is more important than doing something about an incompetent, irrational, POV pushing troublemaker, then smack my bum and send me home, and let the nominator go on his merry, destructive way. This MUST be a boomerang for this editor. Now, given my long-standing contempt for the processes allowed on this page (see my User page), I will say no more in this section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, I understand what you are saying. God knows you say it often enough whenever anybody lodges a complaint. You feel that the best way to deal with those of differing opinions is to abuse and belittle them. Shock them into agreement, in other words. I disagree with you, simple as that. I'd like to see you acknowledge the hurt and disruption you cause, and to learn a different method of handling disagreement. One that complies with wikipolicy and good manners, for example. You're not stupid, and you do good work, but in this area, you have a way to go, I feel. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo acts like this because he pretty much always gets away with it. No acknowledgement that he's aiming to hurt and harass other editors, no remorse. Differences of opinion can be handled politely, respectfully and effectively. But not by HiLo, who feels empowered to treat his fellow human beings with contempt. --Pete (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww :( I had written out a long paragraph and then when I went to save it came up as edit conflict ad I was unable to paste and lost my paragraph. Anyway gist of it is, I am upset that you think my edits are appalling. I never try to POV push and if it seems that way then you have my humble apologies. And to be completely honest with you HiLo48, no I don't vote Liberal. But there is really no need to criticize not only me (calling me "f*cking stupid and f*cking moron") but there is no need to call my edits "appalling" either as I generally make sure my edits are of high quality.--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

At worst HiLo48 can be accused of calling a spade a bloody shovel. However, Collingwood26's posts and edit summaries have been contradictory and illogical. Has HiLo48 come on a bit strong? Possibly. However, I share his frustration with editors that make nonsensical statements and then get all bent out of shape when called on it. There is no further point to this discussion, this is not something that needs admin attention. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with differences is how Wikipedia became what it is today. I draw your attention to the fourth pillar in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Is it a pillar of our community or just a dog turd? --Pete (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The edit summary I saw was extraordinary. WP:BITEY in spades (and shovels). I wish the two would kiss and make up so that a mentor/mentee relationship could develop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My posts were contradictory? Please explain that one as I don't understand where your coming from there. So that's it, he is going to get off scot-free? I was banned for a month once because in frustration I told another editor to "f*ck off". I apologized to that editor, and was still banned for a month. Now this guy unprovoked calls me a "f*cking moron" and "f*cking stupid" and he gets no punishment whatsoever?? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm hearing here, he has refused to apologise to me and instead continued to harass me by saying things such as "appalling contributions" and yet you are all taking HiLo48's side??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not taking HiLo's side. To the contrary, the edit summary I saw was extraordinary given HiLo's edit history and many Barnstars. But I will not get into the middle of this spat. Your contributions, particularly as to Aussie military history, are noted and worthwhile. So I'll urge you to step back from the ANI and continue to focus on building the encyclopedia. (Please note that many editors call these notice boards "drama pages". Getting into the thick of the drama usually isn't worthwhile.) Get back to your endeavor and you will be a happier editor. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone here has a right to edit without getting attacked like that - and we need a system to report these sort of attacks. So we need to make sure we don't blame Collingwood26 for reporting this. I don't think you are, but you're not exactly encouraging him to come back here. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked HiLo48 for one month. I found HiLo's comment here to be a clear personal attack, and I also took into consideration that they continued making personal attacks on their talk page after being informed of this ANI thread. HiLo has been blocked for incivility before, so I do not think we can treat this as an isolated incident. The previous time HiLo was blocked for incivility there was a consensus at ANI that the block should be for one week, which is why I chose the relatively long block length this time around. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want HiLo48 to be blocked, people on here hate me enough as it is, I don't want to give them another reason to hate me.--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't want him blocked ... but you came here to a location where the typical ending is a block for either the reporter or reportee? ES&L 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's unfair. I think we can assume that Collingwood26's desired outcome is that HiLo refrains from personal attacks. And the discussion alone won't do it, because (it would seem), there is somewhat of a tolerance for personal attacks, and the victim gets blamed. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, some wise people decised that WP:WQA was not required. If they wanted discussion then that would have been the place. Anyway, don't get me wrong: I always say that "someone else's incivility may explain yours, but it never excuses it" ES&L 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I know but there's no point blocking him for it, I only came here because I was angry at what he was saying about me and no other editor was helping me so I thought if I posted it here someone could help. I don't see a point in blocking him because as far as I'm concerned HiLo48 is a terrific editor, I would be happy if he says to me he won't do it again.--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would likewise be happy with such an outcome, so long as it is founded upon acceptance and a genuine desire to work productively with other editors, especially those with differing opinions, skills or experience. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Collingwood - please learn to indent properly. Pete: I'm currently trying to find evidence that HiLo ever formally requested to you that you stay off his talkpage as he claims. If he did, I'll be requesting further investigation/action under WP:HARASS - as a minimum, your posts on HiLo's talkpage recently merely inflamed a situation that was already bad enough. ES&L 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Pete was very clearly advised to stay off of HiLo's talkpage here following the close of another ANI event. That type of poking and harassment is unwelcome, disallowed and was clear escalation of things ES&L 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted, but I did not take that to mean in perpetuity. And reviewing my two contributions there, I find it hard to see how a reasonable person could view them as other than positive. --Pete (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course it meant "in perpetuity"...what else does "go away for good" usually mean? When you're referred to by HiLo as a "stalker", and boom you show up...that's classic wikistalking and harassment. Unwatch his page. Don't ever go back there ... again, you have needlessly ratcheted up this situation ... the two of you shouldn't even be working in the same sections of the 'pedia from what I see ES&L 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable person would realize that ANY contribution by YOU to HiLo's talkpage would not be positive. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Hasn't this been resolved? What is the point of these continuing remarks about talk page bans, indents, edit histories (or should I say "histrionics")? – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• With respect S. Rich, I don't think this is quite resolved yet. I fully agree with the block for HiLo48, not least because of his self-imposed non-swearing vow and my own promise to block him if ever he broke it. But that is only half the story and I think it's reasonable to consider whether Skyring was disruptive in posting on HiLo48's talk page following my own unequivocal request not to do so (with no indication that the request had any sort of time limit.) A second question (raised by HiLo48 on his talk page) is the one of whether civilly expressed incompetence is more disruptive than competent incivility - HiLo avers that it is. I presume he's referring to discussions here where Collingwood26 gets Iraq and Afghanistan mixed up and fails to win any support for his/her chosen wording.

My own view is that Skyring's posting on HiLo's talk page merits a final warning, which I'll be happy to give. I don't think in the absence of a warning that it merits a block this time round. On Collingwood26, I can understand why HiLo was getting frustrated with the discussion at List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia but on its own that's nowhere near enough to label Collingwood26 as disruptive. However there are discussions from September 2012 and March this year that suggest this may be a more substantial and widespread problem. It's odd that an editor with a couple of years experience and claiming several article starts still has trouble remembering to sign talk page posts and is seemingly incapable of mastering indents. I'm not myself arguing for a competence block but is there any other way of improving the situation and helping Collingwood26 shape up? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Pete in no uncertain terms never to post on HiLo's talk page again. I have laid it on a bit thick but my earlier, more polite version obviously got overlooked. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

is there any other way of improving the situation and helping Collingwood26 shape up? Not by swearing at and abusing him, for sure. I'll accept your warning, Kim, and voluntarily withdraw from Wikipedia editing for the duration of HiLo's block. Clearly HiLo - and others - are blaming me for stirring him up, and fair enough, my role was not disinterested - I'd like him to face up to the fact that it is not OK to abuse other editors when there is a difference of opinion, and I could see yet another complaint from a target being shrugged aside. This behaviour has gone on for years with no sign of remorse or admission of any error beyond swearing.

Looking at HiLo's post here, it seemed to me that a response was invited. Not to stir him up but to correct two errors. I don't hate anybody, nor do I want to see a heated or hasty response. I would very much have preferred to have a civil and reasoned reply. If that had been forthcoming, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

Nothing in this world lasts forever, and a year, ten years can make a world of difference. Living in the past is a particularly arid and pointless existence IMHO. We cannot change what has gone before, but we can always change our present selves as we learn and mature. Thank you for your contributions, and I'll take myself off for some reflection. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Pete has a point here. Whether or not a response was invited or there were errors, I've long believed if you ban someone from your talk page, you should avoid talking about them on your talk page unless absolutely necessary since despite the wide latitude we give to people to manage their talk page, it's not fair someone can't respond (for the same reason we have to take care when talking about blocked or banned editors). However perhaps a better way to handle it would be to make an explicit request, e.g. 'I believe your comments are unfair/in error but will not be responding because of your request not to post on your talk page but as long as your request stands, can you refrain from talking about me on your talk page?' rather than simply responding.

In any case, a warning is a warning so it doesn't seem that concerning justified or not. The fact that Pete was under the mistaken impression that the request was time limited suggests it's useful reminder in any case and maybe they will now know not to post ever except perhaps for essential notifications; or if they really think things have improved, to query whether the ban can be removed. (Clearly Hilo's comment suggest this is unlikely to be the case.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is how you indent? Sorry I only know the basics of Wikipedia editing, and yes I created all those pages. I'll leave it up to you Kim if you think a temporary block on HiLo48 is reasonable. I would have been contempt with him telling me it won't happen again. As for those other incidents involving me, one was entirely my fault of which I took the blame. The other latest incident was a misunderstanding between myself and Nick-D which went into an argument.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think a block of HiLo48 is merited here, and as Kim knows I have urged sanctions in the past. I've had a fairly long history of interaction with this dude and over the years have come to see him as an unusual case with a short fuse, but a net positive by far. In this case he got salty and he has offered an apology above, though it is pretty minimal. The secondary issue of the post on his talk page has been dealt with. HiLo, I do offer this friendly advice regarding that fourth pillar... before swearing in print, try walking away from the computer for a bit. I should know, I have been doing it for years. Best Wishes, and Trick or Treat, all. Jusdafax 07:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• I can only mirror the sentiments of Jusdafax here. This is like going after a police officer for using excessive force while ignoring the bank robbery he was trying to stop. Want to refer him to Internal Affairs? Fine. But don't ignore the original crime. The other editor here has a history of problematic editing and only just avoided a block during his most recent trip to ANI (in March) by promising to "behave", which he clearly hasn't. HiLo is clearly being punished for using coarse language (which for an Australian is actually not that coarse) while Collingwood26 skates on behaviour that really should be prevented (the actual purpose of blocks around here). Stalwart111 09:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. But just so its crystal clear, I made the most recent report regarding Collingwood26's editing, here to ANI, three weeks ago.[67]Nickm57 (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I'd missed that one. So, yeah, the one I was referencing was not his most recent. Stalwart111 10:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP violating link on Alva, Oklahoma

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

---

User:Alvawacko has added a link repeatedly to Alva, Oklahoma that has been repeatedly reverted by several people--first addition, most recent addition. After the last addition, I took a closer look at it and realized it was a link to the criminal record of a certain individual. This escalates it from mere link spam (which I've warned him about), to something more problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Account blocked and diffs revdeleted. I think the repeated addition of negative information about non-notable indivduals is sufficiently problematic to justify this. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Username doesn't inspire confidence that s/he is HERE to edit constructively about the town of Alva. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

WikipediaNoMore254

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

---

WikipediaNoMore254 (talk · contribs) has recently made edits to several articles that are all vandalism, and seems that it is a WP:VOA (user contribs). Also the user made what seems like a threat [68]. Could someone block this user since it seems to only be a vandalism account? Thanks. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 23:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

update: Seems like the user's been reported already by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards here. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 23:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Atotalstranger

This new contributor seems to have an obsession with adding unsourced or poorly souced assertions to biographies to the effect that the subject was 'born to a Christian family', and/or regarding ethnicity. [69][70][71][72][] I note that Atotalstranger has already been blocked once for edit warring, [73] and judging from edit summaries, seems not to have learned the lesson. Can I suggest that another block might be appropriate, to be withdrawn when Atotalstranger gives an indication of understanding basic policies regarding sourcing etc, and likewise gives an indication that he/she will comply with said policies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Andy that something has to be done to address the behavior here, as multiple communications seem to have had no effect on the editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'multiple communications', this [74] past version of Atotalstranger's talk page gives some indication of the scope of the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy is obviously correct about Atotalstranger on all points. My report with regard to Atotalstranger at the WP:BLP noticeboard is what I believe led Andy to look into this matter and report it here; he has done what I should have done. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour

Hi. This may seem a little OTT, but I've been a witness to bullying and this is how it starts. I want it to stop before it leads to something more serious. A user has been aggressive towards me and repeatedly told me to leave a talk page when I feel I am pointing out genuine inadequacies with the article in question - this is the discussion in question, and the user who is intimidating me is User:DeCausa.

Basically, a couple of weeks ago I stated some facts at the talk page, which I knew would be controversial, hence why I said my aim wasn't to edit the article. Rather, I wanted to point out that, while my arguments don't fulfill WP:V, other editors might want to take them into account.

The user began engaging me yesterday in a very confrontational way, and he realizes that he's doing it, even though I asked him to think about his behaviour.

I have used Wikipedia for several years, been in arguments in the past, but this is the first time I have genuinely felt uncomfortable.

I don't feel it's right for a user to repeatedly tell me to leave a discussion page, all the while ignoring my arguments, that I believe are reasonable enough. He's hidden my comments twice. I don't think I'm going against WP policy by pointing out that an article is using inadequate sources.

I use Wikipedia because I enjoy it. I don't find his behaviour towards me enjoyable, and I don't think that he is assuming good faith on my part. Thank you in advance. btw, I didn't know where to post my complaint, this got me here. BigSteve (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the wider issue but closing your comments seem appropriate whether or not ot was handled well, as the purpose of talk pages is to discuss changes to the article not to discuss the subject of the article. If all you wish to do is 'register' your 'opinion' you'll need to find somewhere else to do it like a discussion forum. If you want to point out sources are inadequet that's fine but you should do so it self or in other words seperate from your opinin of the subject. Opinions on a subject are basically a dime a dozen on wikipedia and while they may be occasionally tolerated you have no real recourse if someone feels it distracting in the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He started a thread with “I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article. I just want this to be registered as an extant opinion, which may one day be shown to be correct.” He then proceeded to explain why his analysis/interpretation based on primary sources was correct and all the secondary sources were wrong, while all the time repeating that he doesn't want to edit the article. He has been repeatedly pointed to WP:NOTFORUM by me and and another user but to no avail. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa, you are correct in principle for hatting the thread as off-topic. Couldn't you have been more polite about it, though?: "Your 'logic' may be impeccable, but who cares? You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia operates. We just report what the RS say, effectively. No one is interested in your personal insights on a subject. You've come to the wrong place." This is not block-worthy incivility IMHO, but it is not likely to improve the tenor of discussion. It makes it more likely that the recipient feels "bullied," as opposed to simply being corrected about what Wikipedia's policy should be. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd boldly hatted off the discussion per DeCausa and Nil Einne's reasoning, which I agree with. No comment on the material though. Blackmane (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account and bogus page created

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

---

User:SkythebutterRS has 9 lifetime edits. All either vandalism or a few you might call severe test edits. 7 were at Boreal forest of Canada including putting disguised/mislabeled links to external websites. They also created a bogus page: "Category:Alberta's Website" which should get deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

The Conjowa

The article in question was deleted through an AfD; the discussion can be found here. The author then recreated the article. I had it CSD'd and it was deleted. The author again recently recreated the article. Had it CSD'd again. I am requesting that the article be salted through the titleblacklist. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have SALTed The Conjowa and Conjowa, and warned the editor. GiantSnowman 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lobsterthermidor

I'm very much anti-drama and try hard to be a self-sufficient admin, but I've finally run out of steam in my interactions with Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone have a look before I do something I'll later regret, please?

The problem involves his ownership of articles, original research, incivility, bullying etc. My attempts to explain these problems to him over the last year or so have resulted in him claiming that I'm obsessively stalking him. My belief, based on extensive examination of his edits, is that despite the superficial appearance of reliability exhibited by his work it is riddled with errors which he fails to acknowledge. This, coupled with his bullying behaviour means that he has crossed the line into disruptive editing, is not an asset to the project, and should be persuaded to leave permanently (he's already "retired" twice). I believed for a long time that he had the potential to be a valuable member of the team, which is why I've been so patient with him. But he's stopped listening to me so I've taken it as far as I can on my own.

Our latest exchange on his talk page is relevant as are many earlier messages on that page and my previous AN/I report. I'll happily provide any further information required if anyone is willing to help. Thanks in anticipation. —SMALLJIM  15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Persistent article overwriting of Steve Wilkinson by Vicki4894

Vicki4894 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently overwriting Steve Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with content for a different person. I created a new page for the other person Steve Wilkinson (tennis coach) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and it was deleted as not notable. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I note you haven't attempted to discuss this matter with Vicki4894 before bringing to ANI; consequently there is nothing to do yet. I have created a sandbox for her at User:Vicki4894/Steve Wilkinson and will invite her to edit there. GiantSnowman 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did attempt to discuss this matter at the end of the welcome message on User talk:Vicki4894#Welcome --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One message - tagged on at the end of the 'welcome' template - is not sufficient. If I missed it then it's likely this user did. GiantSnowman 17:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)