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

User:Martinvl and long term disruption of WT:MOSNUM

Current discussions of relevance:

Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute WT:MOSNUM#Imperial measurements Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#RFC - Clarifying Units of Measure

Like many users I am tired of being dragged into a ridiculous argument I simply do not care about. However, User:Martinvl's obsession with convincing wikipedia to remove any preference for imperial measurements on UK articles is now becoming utterly disruptive. It has been forum shopped in numerous places and the latest RFC is simply gaming the system.

I urge that a community sanction be considered banning User:Martinvl from any and all discussions related to WP:MOSNUM. I cannot perceive of any productive discussion, whilst he is present. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice that User:Wee Curry Monster has let a number of people know about this debate here, here and here. While it is appropriate to inform "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" about a particular posting, WP:CANVASS insists that "the audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". I look forward to Wee Curry Monster notifying everybody associated with the debate. Martinvl (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever shortcomings WCM may have made in this notice Martinvl, nothing excuses the incivility you showed in the UK discussion along with your owning attitude at it. I don't think anyone in the UK article dispute article can stand up for your actions no-one backed you up as far as I could tell and at least 3 editors including me and WCM backed calls or where thinking of reporting you for your disruptive comments, accusations, and failure to even acknowledge your fault and apologise for it, all of which equate to bad faith and antagonistic behaviour. Even with everyone notified, nothing excuses your behaviour at that talk page never mind what appears to be an never-ending campaign against Imperial measurements on this site. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that Martin has asked WCM to notify a wider group of editors, then sadly I must express my view that WCM is correct to describe Martin's contributions as disruptive. As time has gone by Martin's attitude and actions have got closer and closer to the stubbornness of his old adversary DeFacto, with an equally destructive effect on the community, and unfortunately he has refused to accept that consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity, and he has continued to act as if he has a veto on any agreement. I agree with WCM that it now appears that nothing less than a topic ban will suffice, and I fear that it needs to be wider than merely WP:MOSNUM, because I am convinced that he would continue his pro-metrication campaign elsewhere, such as his recent attempt to move the debate to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography now that he has seen that he won't convince people at WP:MOSNUM. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am (very) involved here, having borne the brunt of this campaign for far longer than most, so I won't say much unless others ask me to. But I will add my support to the comments by David Biddulph and others and call for such a topic ban to be enacted. Kahastok talk 17:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am heavily involved in this matter at this point, though I never intended to be. I've tried to negotiate the tense line between the two camps of editors on this issue. I've tried to be accommodating to Martin and others. Furthermore, it was I who suggested that a discussion at UKGEO be held. However, despite all of my good faith efforts I am now convinced that Martin's behavior is both repetitive and out-of-line. He will stop at nothing to continue his campaign, and if one gives him even a sliver of leeway, as I did, he will take it as a go-ahead to open a biased and heavily skewed RfC to implement metric units on a broad basis. He has even gone so far as to quote me in attempt to justify his own position, skewing what he's known I've said. It is quite clear that he cannot move beyond his own position, and can't think outside of it. Overall, I endorse the comments that are above me. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As a result of User:Wee Curry Monster making this posting, the debate in question on WP:UNITS spilled over onto United Kingdom. Two parrallel debates ranged, one on each page - hardly conducive to getting a consensus. Editors on both pages were involved in the debate, but I notice that Wee Curry Monster has only circulated those editors who contributed to the debate on the United Kingdom page, not those who contributed on the WP:UNITS page. I look forward to him contacting everybody who was involved in the debate on both pages. Martinvl (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I do not want to comment on personalities. However, I must state that the atmosphere on MOSNUM when it comes to discussing units of measure is incredibly polarised. It is also fair to state that while I prefer metric measures, I acknowledge the split use of both metric and imperial measures in the UK. I can't say I am aware of anything that Martin has written that I find objectionable. I can see nothing objectionable in this [1] or this [2] or this[3] or this [4] or this [5]. That includes edits that Martin has made in the last 50 edits on MOSNUM talk. Going back further I could see nothing objectionable in Martin's edit here [6] or here [7] or here [8]. In the last 500 edits on MOSNUM talk, Martin made 36. This is more than some but less than others so I can't see that this is excessive. (Another contributor made 99 of the last 500 edits!) There are complaints, but no diffs to back them up. As Martin appears to put his point of view without rancour, I can't understand how this complaint can be sustained. Michael Glass (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've participated in this debate, why didn't Wee Curry Monster notify me? Michael's figures just above don't seem to justify a ban, or at least not just banning one contributor. What happens if we ban him? Does the discussion go away? Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I fear that this case may have to go to ArbCom eventually, as it has been going on for years. --Rschen7754 09:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now checked Martin's contribution to WikiProject_UK_geography#RFC. Martin made a proposal, other editors opposed it and he clarified what he intended. Once again, one person disagreed and others made comments about the measurement situation in the UK. At no time did Martin write anything objectionable there. I think it is perfectly in order for an editor to make a proposal. On the basis on what is written there the complaint cannot be sustained. Michael Glass (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In the third place there was a nasty spat between editors that followed an edit or edits that Martin opposed. Without going into details or trying to take sides, there did seem to be a genuine misunderstanding here and this led to several editors getting quite annoyed with Martin. As a result, everyone became hypersensitive to perceived slights. I think it must be stated that Martin appeared to be in a minority of one in his request that the article be returned to what it was before. I think he genuinely believed that the status quo ante should have been restored. However, this was not what happened, and now that several editors have given their opinions, there appears to be no chance for the article to be changed back. It is hard to take when people who had not previously edited an article come along and change it, but in this case they had the numbers and also MOSNUM on their side.

I know that people have become upset, but I think there was more than one misunderstanding. I do not believe that Martin set out to offend people. This can be demonstrated by his comments elsewhere. Michael Glass (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No offence Michael Glass but "to be a genuine misunderstanding here and this led to several editors getting quite annoyed with Martin" seems quite skewed to overlook Martinvl's behaviour at the UK article discussion where they make at least two false accusations of one editor being a hypocrite and then that I suppossedly implied it, as well as stating that I had no right to leave a response and that it was "unsolicited". Hardly a genuine misunderstanding.

• Martinvl stated that if User:Ddstretch is suggesting a certain situation then they must be a hypocrite [9].
• In that same edit Martinvl starts trying to be a smart-alack towards me making idiotic assumptions and adopting a quite condescending tone. I retorted in kind but without being condescending. [10], though a revision later [11] I added to my lip back, after which I retracted my acknowledgement that Martinvl was correct and added a bit more lip [12]. I then left a personal message on Martinvl's talk page stating that I would desist from responding like a smart-ass if they did so in kind. As a sign of good faith I then striked my smartass retorts except the one in regards to being English [13]. It should be noted Martinvl did not respond to this.
• [14] DDStretch requests Martinvl retract their hypocrite allegation as they see it as a personal attack. Martinvl would only apologise [15] for calling DDStretch the wrong name. Despite that things seem to calm down and responses are mostly on topic.
• Despite the fact Martinvl is blatantly ignoring WP:MOSNUM and arguing that the article is reverted to his preferred version per WP:BRD despite the fact it violates WP:MOSNUM until a consensus is reached (despite the fact he was the only editor who backed his stance), they decide to restore their preferred version with this [16] as their reasoning. This is the instance where they blatantly distort User:RGloucester's comment (which RGloucester) responds to here [17]). In response User:David Biddulph responds [18] on this distortion of User:RGloucester's comment and Martinvl's ignoring of what a consensus is. Martinvl keeps arguing that WP:BRD should apply [19] as it would restore the article to their preferred version which violates WP:MOSNUM. User:N-HH then comments in response to the "no consensus" argument of Martinvl's disagreeing with them [20], and then comments on Martinvl's behaviour [21].
• User:Ddstretch points out [22] that Martinvl has still not retracted or apologized for his hypocrite comment. In response [23] Martinvl tries to defend himself by stating " I was accusing User:Mabuska of implying that you were a hypocrite by twisting what you had said. Please re-read the comments and you will see that my comment was directed at Mabuska, not you" - though a reread of his comment [24] clearly shows it was directed at Ddstretch and nowhere did he say he was implying me. I responded angrily [25] and respost the comments that involve me, DDStretch and Martinvl [26]. I also ask that they withdraw their false accusation against me, and getting quite annoyed [27]. I followed up with a suggestion for Martinvl to just apologise and drop the issue [28] and then we can go our own way.
• Ddstretch responds to Martinvl [29] and then Martinvl responds [30] where they state You should have let DDStretch answer for himself and not butted in. If you strike the unsolicited pre-emptive answer that you made on behalf of DDStretch, I will strike out my response to you and DDStretch can then explain himself as originally requested.. Now I don't know about you but I take "not butted in" as a personal attack, also add in they say that my comment is unsolicited.
• Ddstretch responds to Martinvl about their failure to apologise and withdraw [31], whilst stating [32] there is nothing wrong with me "butting in". Martinvl then tries to argue on [33] making a false accusation that WCM was bringing an edit-war to the article (despite the fact WCM only made one edit), to which WCM commented [34]. From this point 4 editors (including myself) make comments about some form of action against Martinvl possibly being neccessary: [35], [36], [37], and my last comment.

Having said that in my last comment, I notice WCM suggested an RFC/U not an AN/I.

Since then Martinvl took it upon himself keep being uncivil by moving User:Kahastok's comment to an entirely different section of the related discussion [38], which User:Kahastok raised at Martinvl's talk page.

In regards to the actual UK article itself, I only became involved in the discussion as I saw that Martinvl reverted an edit by WCM, and after a brief foray into the Falkland Islands articles a while back, and recently backing the continuation of WCM's topic-ban in regards to those islands, I recognized Martinvl as being active with WCM in the past and believed that Martinvl may have been hounding WCM. Had another editor made the edit originally, it is quite possible that Martinvl wouldn't have noticed or got involved.

This editor deserves some form of censure for their behaviour and failure to apologise and withdraw their accusations whilst trying to wriggle away from it. They have instilled nothing but bad faith and distrust for me and no doubt others in regards to this editor. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have witnessed Martinvl's conduct in this area myself, briefly (see here). I have never ever seen an argument about the merits of metric versus imperial measurements that did not end in high drama, warfare and bloodshed. I don't think that this needs to go to ArbCom just yet, but a topic ban might suffice. With that in mind, I would like to propose that Martinvl is topic-banned from all edits and discussions related to units of measurement, broadly construed. Who agrees? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't. This ANI discussion is about prolonged debates over which units of measurement should be used in Wikipedia articles. WCM's proposal is to restrict those debates. Ritchie333's proposal goes far beyond WCM's and would deprive us of Martinvl's contributions to articles that are specifically about units of measurement. NebY (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I can only speak to behaviour at WT:MOSNUM, which is the subject of this complaint. This is above all a content dispute. It started when an IP editor (with no apparent or suspected connection with anyone else) raised the issue of why imperial units were still used. Several editors later raised concerns that the current text of the guideline might be too broad or too unclear in its recommendation of imperial units as primary units in certain UK-related contexts (such as non-road distances and weights of sportspeople) and adduced valid arguments to support their positions; it is the behaviour in dealing with this content dispute at WP:MOSNUM that is the subject of this complaint. Based on the discussion at WT:MOSNUM, I don't think I would lay failure to engage in a constructive, evidence-based discussion of the issue at Martinvl's door. I do not think raising an RfC should be regarded as forum shopping. An RfC is a normal part of dispute resolution, and there was a specific recommendation to clarify this issue (and possibly some others) in the relevant projects, because some editors felt that they would be more competetent to clarify actual usage. The wording of the RfC could, perhaps, have been more neutral, but I see nothing egregiously objectionable that would warrant sanctions. I think it might be appropriate to post a message at WT:MOSNUM encouraging all editors to assume good faith, refrain from questioning others' motives, engage in constructive discussion, and use the usual methods (e.g. straw polls, RfCs) to clarify the different opinions and move the discussion forward in a constructive and efficient manner. —Boson (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• While I respect both Boson and Michael Glass, I do not agree with their statements here. Martin has taken advantage of good faith, even if his tone is not one of "rancor". In multiple attempts to forge a compromise, I've tried to reach out to Martin. Each time, he's taken my words and skewed them. For example, with regard to the RfC. I suggest that a discussion be had at UKGEO, whereby Martin should see what editors there thought. Then, I thought it should be brought back to MOSNUM and discussed. Of course, there is nothing technically wrong with Martin's opening of the RfC, however, he did so on the basis of my comments, and essentially used them as justification for RfC to introduce solely metric units for geographic uses, which has been heavily opposed. The fact that Martin either cannot or refuses to understand what others are saying in attempts to compromise makes discussing with Martin almost impossible. Mabuska quoted an instance where Martin selectively took words I had said, himself having participated in the debate, and used them to justify edit warring at United Kingdom. He intentionally skewed my words, despite knowing that my opinion was not expressed by them. Sure, his tone is not one of "rancor", however an editor that takes advantage of good faith to push his own POV, that does not try to compromise and that does not listen to what others are saying for the sake of pushing his own POV is a severe detriment to the discussion, and makes it almost impossible to make progress. It is this disruption that I believe is being brought up here, not his "technical" wrongs. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I have nothing against Martinvl creating sub-sections for admins and the result of this discussion, personally I find it quite condescending for Martinvl to dictate what they are for when it is obvious, almost as if none of us have a clue.

Regardless of that, any admin looking at this discussion will see that not once does Martinvl make mention of or try to defend his behaviour, instead focusing on trying to wriggle out of this AN/I by having it "thrown out" on technicalities in regards to WCM's posting of this AN/I. Yes Martinvl says they will mount a defence if this case isn't thrown out, but they shouldn't have to stall like this is they are as vindicated as they seem to believe they are. Martinvl has questions to answer in regards to their behaviour, especially at the UK article, and they are purposely avoiding them focusing on trying to get this "thrown out". Pure and simple gaming of the system. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"To date he does not appear to have taken any notice of my request." - pretty much like yourself in regards to Ddstretch and my requests for an apology from you? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to this edit, in which Martin edit wars to close an RFC that he opened, with a closing summary that I believe does not reflect the consensus there. Kahastok talk 20:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is getting even more absurd as it goes on. With what essentially amounts to bad faith behavior with the closing of the UKGEO RfC, with the attempt to sidestep the issue and focus on technicalities, with bizarre division of this thread into subsections…it demonstrates that the message just is not getting through. I really wish I wasn't a part of any of this nonsense. There is nothing good to be had out of any of it, and it only continues to get worse. I wish an admin would step in. If not to explain to Martin the issue, to at least close the discussion at MOSNUM, and prevent it from spiraling out of control. RGloucester — ☎ 20:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I've asked Martin on his talk to reconsider the move, and intend to take it to review per WP:CLOSE if he does not. If I do, I will (if I remember) mention that I brought it up here but that it got lost in a large piece of text. Kahastok talk 06:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear that there is no problem with ending the RfC per se. The problem is with the summary explaining the reason. The RfC should be ended with the explanation "Withdrawn by poster". As Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs explains:

"There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly), the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation. Most RfCs do not benefit from formal closure."

--Boson (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the value of ANI pile-ons, and the broader situation may be better suited to a User RFC, but (having been asked to comment here) I'd happily put on record my view that Martin's behaviour at the UK article was, basically, disruptive and a waste of WP space and editor time, including his own. He edit-warred to excise reference to miles in clear violation of consensus on that page, real-world usage in the UK and the MOS and sparked off a huge talk page thread. Most rational people working in a collaborative environment, when every single other person disagrees with them, especially over something so trivial, will drop their crusade. Some, of course won't – and will even go so far as to insist their personal alternative view must prevail, because their unilateral opposition to the more obviously correct option means that there is supposedly "no consensus" for the latter. Implicitly accusing another editor of being a "hypocrite" didn't help either (nor did his rather transparent attempts to rationalise that attack and, indeed, bizarrely shift the blame for it to yet another editor). That said, polite POV-pushing, activist agendas and time-wasting sophistry are all common enough on WP, even if arguably more pernicious than some types of more immediately obvious disruptive behavior. N-HH talk/edits 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Martinvl's basic battleground attitude is well-evidenced in the section below this #Defence by Martinvl, in which he tries to WP:OWN the section by intimidation: "This section is for the use of Martinvl. If anybody else posts here, I will delete their posts." Such an attitude is hardly conducive to collegial and collaborative co-operation. I suggest to Martinvl that he should do some deep-thinking about his relationship to the Wikipedia community, and commit himself to some radical attitude adjustment before he is topic banned or indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl is not a team player. He is unwilling or unable to accept or even consider any views on articles related to measurement systems which conflict with his hard line. He disrespects editors with contradictory views, dismissing their edits and contributions with short shrift. He often gets involved in protracted arguments, due to his inability to compromise or accept fault, and has a list of warnings and admonishments as long your arm on his talk page. He has a superiority complex, typified by his actions at Template:Systems of measurement; with first this edit, pushing 3 of his own articles into inappropriate and unduly prominent positions in a widely used template, then warring [39],[40],[41] each time his attempts at promoting his own articles was thwarted. Attempts to get him to discuss his changes are difficult and his arguments are arrogant and as if he has a veto on article and template contents. He has no qualms about gaming, lawyering. He is bad at providing justifying logic for his pushes, probably because there is none - other than his desire to see his opinions and his articles prevail. All in all an arrogant and difficult editor to coexist with. His inability to accept anything other than the metric system dogma that he seems to worship makes him unsuitable to edit measurement system related articles in an environment that relies on consensus, coexistence and good faith. EzEdit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am involved. I didn't want to contribute to this discussion, because I had already realised that Martinvl's mode of operation when challenged on wikipedia is often to resort to disruptive POV-pushing. He uses game-playing and wiki-lawyering to deflect any discussion away from the confrontation of his own behaviour into trivial technical issues that he uses in an attempt to have dismissed any and all concerns about his own behaviour. He also uses unjustifiable highly biased and skewed descriptions of others' actions, and distorts people's previous statements to his own ends. He makes implied personal attacks, and seem to think he can bargain them away when the correct course of action for any of us who do this (and we are all at risk of doing so when things become heated) is to immediately apologize and withdraw them unreservedly and sort out anything else after the apology and withdrawal has happened. He edit wars (he reverted 6 times on AN/I for instance). He doesn't do what we all should do. You can find all the evidence that backs up my ideas about him in the postings of other interested parties already in this thread.

I thought a better use of my time would be to walk away and disengage, and to try to increase my productive work on wikipedia by writing content and to stay away from unnecessary drama on here or elsewhere. However, what has happened after Martinvl tried to impose the structure on this thread in AN/I, and who could post to bits of it, changed all that. Either by complete lack of insight, or by being over-arrogant, Martinvl spectacularly condemns himself in almost all of his postings to this thread as well as the comments he makes on his own talk page just before his 48 hour block, and certainly afterwards ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartinvl&diff=577840954&oldid=577439188 ). They have shown me that he cannot restrain a completely unacceptable bundle of behaviour and actions on his part that are completely at odds with key principles of how editors should interact on wikipedia. These actions are the hallmark of someone who believes he is battling for THE TRUTH as he sees it, someone who seems unwilling to work collaboratively and to accept compromise, and so they seem to be the actions of a kind of fanatic who would be unsuited to be an editor on wikipedia. I speak as someone who actually believes we should work more towards using the metric system in articles, but who completely accepts the compromise and collaborative nature required for good work between editors on wikipedia. As I have said before, we all have to accept that we must make compromises, that consensus does not mean unanimity, and that we will sometimes be in a minority position that we must gracefully abandon and defer easily to enable progress to be made. As Karl Popper once wrote "You may be right, and I may be wrong, and by an effort, we may closer to the truth." Sadly, I can see no signs that Martinvl shares much of this in his actions and behaviour in this current dispute. He appears to be condescending, over-aggressive, and even domineering in his attempots to control other editors' behaviours, especially, it seems, if he thinks these editors disagree with his own position.

Whether Martinvl can be persuaded away from this destructive path on wikipedia is up to him, but I originally sincerely believed and hoped he could, because his potential use to the project could be very great. I doubt that now. His 6 reversions of the structure he imposed, and his arrogant behaviour towards the admins who have managed this AN/I thread just backup and illustrate the problems all the other editors critical of him have already mentioned. I did wonder whether to be highly critical of Martinvl's behaviour, yet suggest that he should be required, if possible, to work with a mentor to help him understand the more collaborative way that working on wikipedia entails. I really do not think that would work unless we see immediate and hopeful signs of a change in behaviour now from Martinvl on his return from his 48 hour block. I would have thought that he would have stopped digging his self-destructive hole, climbed out, and made the necessary assurances and promises to behave better once the shock of a 48 hour block happened. Instead, we see even more desperate arguments being deployed to, once again, attempt to deflect any argument away from examining his problematic behaviour by raising technical issues to have any examination of his behaviour thrown out. This is how he tried to deal with his failure to stop consensus on Talk:United Kingdom over the use of imperial or metric units in the article. These technical issues are either bogus or of no practical effect on anything realistic here. In other words, they are extreme examples of game-playing and wiki-lawyering. This is now, I think, symptomatic of all his behaviour because he seems unable to stop doing it even in the face of action taken against him by uninvolved administrators on AN/I. Instead, he is pouring oil on his own fire. Therefore, I realistically think that some way needs to be found of dealing with Martinvl. If he cannot reform, then either he decides to stop editing or wikipedia, by some mechanism, protects itself from his future disruption, because I am sure that, unless radical change in his behaviour happens, the problems will happen again and may intensify to the detriment of all. I do not know whether this can be done via AN/I, and I wish my involvement in this waste-of-time drama to decrease. I am fed up of all this unnecessary drama over ultimately trivial issues that are already allowed by WP:UNITS and WP:MOSNUM.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that my involvement is confined totally and entirely to my actions on Talk:United Kingdom in trying to stop an edit-war Martinvl was involved in and the subsequent attempt to suggest what consensus was. This led to implied personal attacks against myself and my actions from Martinvl that I broadly construed as making me involved, and therefore, in my own opinion, precluded me from taking any administrative action against further behaviour. However, one of his replies (alluded to in other editor's message, above) suggested that if I had decided in Martinvl's opnion's favour, then all would have been well to him. This is just my own opinion about involvement.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I request that this accusation be dismissed without comment by the closing administratgor out on grounds of vote stacking. If the closing admin is not willing to do so, please let me know and I will then mount a defence to rebut the accusations against me.

In particular the accusations cover three discussions. Shortly after User:Wee Curry Monster opened this section, he informed Ddstrech, Mabuska and RGloucester of this section. After I warned him about vote-stacking, he notified another four editors, all of whom had contributed to the debate at Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute. He did not contact anybody who contributed to either of the other discussions but did not contribute to Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute. I again warned him about vote-stacking. To date he does not appear to have taken any notice of my request.

Martinvl (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Once again, an attempt to dismiss any and all concerns of his behaviour by employing a tactic that has been dealt with already on his talk page (referred to already) in raising a bogus technical issue. The hole becomes deeper.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• May I kindly suggest, Martin, that instead of beating a dead horse with regard to vote-stacking, an issue which administrators have dismissed, you try and respond to some of the concerns voiced here. This would be more productive, and is more likely to result in a positive outcome for everyone involved, including you. At yet, you have not justified your actions in any way, nor have you even acknowledgedwhy many editors have concerns with your behavior with regard to units, and with regard to this ANI thread. RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Martin: This contribution is offered to you, in public, in this thread to try to help you see that there is a better way to proceed. Please understand that this is an effort to help you. As RGloucester also advised you, please pay more attention to your own behaviour here. I will quote some of what I wrote, above now. I urge you to read it carefully and consider if you can do what it advises. I think it would help defuse this situation somewhat: "I would have thought that he would have [...] made the necessary assurances and promises to behave better once the shock of a 48 hour block happened." If you can do this, then I think you should try to voluntarily call upon wikipedia's mentoring service (details at WP:MENTOR) to help you avoid this drama in the future.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A note to the Wikipedia community I archived the sections below this, #Defence by Martinvl, #Closing Admin's comments and #Response to Martinvl's defence, all created by Martinvl, with the comment: NAC: I know of no policy or precedent on Wikipedia that allows an editor under examination on AN/I to create a new section in order to attempt to control its format and content. This is a community discussion, and not your talk page, so I suggest you allow the community to decide how it wants to go about organizing the discourse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC) When Martinvl removed my archive wrapper, I restored it with the additional note: Restored after removal by Martinvl. And now I will impose my own conditions: any editor except Martinvl is free to unarchive this. That will help ensure that the removal is a community-based one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC) As might be expected, Martinvl removed it again. I have no intention of restoring it yet again, but I did want the community to know of these actions on Martinvl's part, which appear to me to be antithetical to the process of free and open community discussion. Martinvl, whom I have never come across before, does not seem to exhibit the necessary collegiality and collaborative spirit that make Wikipedia possible. He seesm, instead, to want to control anything that concerns himself or the subjects he prefers to edit in. Such a personality is not a good match for this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I suggest that future commenters ignore Martinvl's sections below and continue to use the section above this for discussion of his behavior, or create a new section below his for continuation of the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I have blocked Martinvl for 48 hours for repeated disruption at the ANI thread. GiantSnowman 11:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Is that metric hours or imperial hours? EEng (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I believe that the correct answer to that question is non-SI hours accepted for use with the SI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talk • contribs) You are kidding, right? EEng (talk) Of course, hours aren't imperially coherent either. NebY (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I was being deadly serious. In fact, I propose that Wikipedia metricate all blocks: the appropriate expression of time for Martin's block being 172800s. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 172.8 ks, surely? Kahastok talk 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Yes! Believe it or not, that was addressed on my talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Defence by Martinvl This section is for the use of Martinvl. If anybody else posts here, I will delete their posts. You are welcome to post in the section #Response to Martinvl's defence. For my own part, I will ensure that everything that I write is well cross-referenced. @Closing Admin 1. I request that this accusation be thrown out on grounds of vote stacking. In particular the accusations cover three discussions. Shortly after User:Wee Curry Monster opened this section, he informed Ddstrech, Mabuska and RGloucester of this section. After I warned him about vote-stacking, he notified another four editors, all of whom had contributed to the debate at Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute. He did not contact anybody who contributed to either of the other discussions but did not contribute to Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute. I again warned him about vote-stacking. To date he does not appear to have taken any notice of my request. I therefore request that the closing admin close this request without discussion on grounds of violation of WP:CANVASS, If the closing admin is not willing to do so, please let me know and I will then mount a defence to rebut the accusations against me. Martinvl (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken (Reponse to #A note to the Wikipedia community) 1. In my view, the structures that I introduced were necessary to prevent this community discussion turning into a Ochlocracy in which I could become the victim. Martinvl (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Closing Admin's comments Will the closing admin please post his/her comments here. This will ensure that they are separate from other comments. Martinvl (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Response to Martinvl's defence Will editors who wish to respond to my defence, please do so here. I will ensure that everything that I write can be cross-referenced using the notation "@A.N.Other (1)". Martinvl (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion regarding possible topic ban

I think this debate has shown all that needs to be in regards to Martinvl's behaviour, and they have failed to justify any of their actions. I would like to propose at least a year long topic-ban in regards to measurements and some form of community ban for a specified period due to their behaviour as highlighted throughout this AN/I. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that a year-long topic-ban would be a good way of dealing with this.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support long topic ban, as this editor has shown an utter inability to edit neutrally in the area of measurement systems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support The block appeal at User talk:Martinvl#ANI demonstrates how any discussion with him on this topic just ends up in a huge WP:DRAMA festival and many users are simply tired of it; the community needs a break. His first action on the block expiry was to repeat accusations of vote stacking, when he has repeatedly been told neutral notices informing other editors is a requirement of WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, sadly For reasons the others have given.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I withdraw my viewpoint after reading the sensible comments by RGloucester about the issue, and also noting the correction to people's imagined intention behind the initial statement that caused these viewpoints to begin being formally made, by Mabuska.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Rschen7754 08:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Abstain and Oppose. Abstain from WCM's original proposal of a ban on discussing use of units in Wikipedia articles; I've been staying away from those discussions, the MOSNUM thread drives me to despair. Oppose banning Martinvl from all articles on units and systems of measurement; the drama levels on these are much lower and Martinvl continues to make constructive edits. Oppose a community site ban; I can't see what it would prevent that lesser bans would not. This ANI thread has escalated rather fast, as ANI threads sometimes do; shouldn't we try an WP:RFC/U? NebY (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) opposes struck per [42] NebY (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If it comes to assessing the consensus of editors who are not involved then count me as involved, at the very least because I participated in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#RFC - Clarifying Units of Measure. NebY (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose' serial sanctions. As Martinvl's block is expiring, we should wait to see if the reflection time has been sufficient for them to gain a better understanding of community norms. NE Ent 11:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, given their continued wiki-lawyering upon block expiration. NE Ent 10:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, mostly per NebY, but also based on my previous interactions with User:Martinvl. Let's try some less drastic remedies first. Garamond Lethet
  c 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Abstain - I feel as if parties involved in the matter should not voice an opinion here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I declare my involvement (again). I have long felt that a topic ban was needed due to this editor's chronic inability to edit neutrally in this area. This includes in following the rules on unrelated articles. On RGloucester's point, I disagree: I see no reason not to put my view, declaring my involvement, and allow the closing admin to give it the weight it merits. I didn't comment much above because I didn't feel it would help. Kahastok talk 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to admonish those who have decided to voice an opinion, merely to state my own. I personally prefer that decision be taken by neutral parties, preferably administrators, who evaluate the matter through their own mental procedures. That is merely why I have not voiced an opinion of either "Oppose" or "Support", and should, as I said, not be taken negatively. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - whoa my proposal wasn't meant to be a straw-poll for all of us involved editors to support or oppose. It was my proposal for the admins looking at this page as it is they will decide what action to partake not us. I also removed the sub-section header someone put above my proposal as it was not meant to a straw-poll - that borders on refactoring another editors comment. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Adding a section header is a common and permitted practice. NE Ent 10:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, thanks for that and I hope you've encouraged Martinvl to engage here or in an RFC/U. Just on a technical note, I don't think it's quite correct to say the admins will decide whether to impose a ban. The community does (unless ArbCom's given a ruling). WP:CBAN has this: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments" and then goes into more detail about the process and suchlike. NebY (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Abstain for the same reasons as RGloucester. I have described above my impressions at MOSNUM, where I was involved, but it would not be appropriate to express a view formally supporting or opposing a "consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". --Boson (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dismiss this ANI on grounds of vote-stacking by proposer: I requested here that this ANI be dimissed on grounds of vote-stacking by User:Wee Curry Monster. User:ddstretch argued here that this issue of vote-stacking had been dealt with on my Talk Page. This is incorrect - the issues there were clouded by many things including the need need to have given Wee Curry Monster proper notice. I have now given Wee Curry Monster formal notice that I am posting this message and as such, anything on my talk page should be disregarded as it could be taken out of context. Martinvl (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that this discussion has now been going on in this forum for a while, and your previous attempts to raise this as grounds to dismiss this matter have not been successful, the issue is now not relevant. Your attempt to re-raise it suggests that you're unwilling to face up to the concerns which have been raised about your conduct above. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Martin. Your best option is to address the concerns voiced here, not to try and wriggle out of any possible commentary. RGloucester — ☎ 13:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I fear you misunderstood Giant Snowman's comment about notice[43]. I don't think he was saying you should give WCM notice; I think he was saying that WCM had been giving notice as required rather than vote-stacking. But either way, please put that aside and address the concerns expressed here. NebY (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The normal procedure for the administration of justice in any civilized community is for the accused to listen to the accusations and then to present his case to whoever is presiding over the case. In this instance, the presiding officer is the closing administrator and my opening gambit is that this thread is null and void because Wee Curry Monster indulged in vote stacking at the very beginning thereby prejudicing a fair discussion. Please leave it to him (or her) to decide. If the closing administrator decides that my case is good, then he will not have to wade through 7870 words to arrive at a decision, otherwise we will see what (s)he decides. You can help by leaving matters by just letting the closing administrator do their job. Martinvl (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl, please do not take offense to these words and understand that it is honest advice for you; stop responding, consider the points everyone here has made, and understand both how Wikipedia resolves disputes, and carefully consider how you have presented yourself and your argument. Then craft another response. At this time I feel you are only damaging your own defence. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I don't think "Wikipedia's metric martyr denied due process, natural justice" is going to fly here or in the wider world, but I'll strike my oppose and leave you to your gambits. NebY (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn, realised I was repeating myself and advised my by mentor not to keep responding

I'm only responding as Martin has templated me on my talk page but its precisely this sort of relentless pursuit of trivia, false accusations and unnecessary WP:DRAMA that led me to initiate this thread. At Talk:United Kingdom he falsely accused me of edit warring, when I indicated clearly to Martin [44] I would not under any circumstances revert him. Other editors agreed with my comments that his changes detracted from the quality of the article, reverted Martin and he alone then edited warred to impose his views upon the article. Discussion at Talk:United Kingdom then descended into farce with Martin wikilawyering that the article should be reverted back to his version whilst we discussed it with him. In the biased RFC he initiated he repeated the same false accusation I was edit warring with him. Here, it is a requirement that I notify involved editors, which I did via a neutral templated message. After Martin himself demanded it, I went on to notify everyone involved at Talk:United Kingdom via a neutral templated message and there is a neutral note at WT:MOSNUM. The accusation of vote stacking is patently false (farsical in that he himself demanded I notify additional editors), he's been told repeatedly it is baseless and he won't let it go. Its precisely because of his inability to drop the WP:STICK that leads him to bring up the same topic again and again at WT:MOSNUM. Rather than addressing the issues with his behaviour he is attempting to divert this into discussions about other editors. This isn't an isolated example, its how Martin operates and whilst Martin refuses to listen and is unable to collaborate with editors who don't share his opinion he is not an asset to this project. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• And this is exactly the point, Martin. Despite various people on your talk page and elsewhere explaining to you that this is not a court of justice, that attempting to force some bizarre set of procedures upon the administrators here is not productive, you continue on with it. This is exactly emblematic of your behavior at MOSNUM and at the United Kingdom talk page. You are not listening to what people are saying. You are being disruptive, and refusing to get the point. There is no way you can be part of a collaborative project like Wikipedia if you cannot listen. I really just don't understand it. Listen to what people have said on your talk page, and stop with the technicalities. And this point, however, I have little hope for you. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• @RGloucester: I beg to differ - the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "Justice" as "exercise of authority in maintenance of right". If the purpose of this ANI request is to exercise authority, then its purpose is the administration of justice. Apart from a court or a mob, who else administers justice? Martinvl (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is that you have no rights here, nor does anyone else who edits Wikipedia. This is a private website, operating under rules promulgated by the WMF and further developed by the community of editors. You have no "right" to edit here", no "right" to have "justice" done, no "right" to due process. What you have is an obligation to follow community-determined mores of behavior in order to continue to contribute to improving the encyclopedia. Period. If you don't understand that, you will never be happy here, and if you don't observe that obligation, the community can, and will, turn you out without batting an eyelash, and you will have no "right" of protest - although the community will almost certainly allow you to appeal any ban, even though it is not obliged to do so. Does that make the situation any clearer to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Martin, you agreed to all this when you signed up to Wikipedia. Please abandon your present course, change your approach, and I sincerely hope that you will be able stay on wikipedia, though I think you really really need a mentor if you are to continue.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I do. I called "dibs". But seriously, you seem to be incompatible with the project as a whole. You haven't taken anyone's advice to heart. Your only recourse may be to abandon your current area of interest voluntarily and work on other articles while you learn how Wikipedia works and how to work with Wikipedia. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That says it all - some anonymous contributor, identified only by a Verizon Communications IP address administers justice - even worse than mob rule (or does User:RGloucester think otherwise)? Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Woosh. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe Martin no longer warrants any response or reaction. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support the ban. What Martin continues to call "mob rule" is what the rest of us refer to as the Wikipedia community, or consensus. Martin continually refuses to recognise those concepts, and perpetuates the belief that he (alone of our 20 million en-Wikipedians) has a right of veto. In view of his never-ending disruption and wikilawyering I support a ban. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support For what my input is as "some anonymous contributor". There are firm examples of Battleground mentality, IDHT, and other incompatible behavior that is not a benefit to the project. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Actually, considering the nature of Martinvl's behavior, an indef block or site ban is probably needed, since his editing in any area is likely to exhibit the same problems, but I'm willing to go along with the topic ban, and we'll see if he can tone down his behavior while editing in areas he's less fervent about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. There seems to be the general feeling that Martinvl is abusing the good faith of fellow editors, and his actions appear to be rather pointy. It's clear almost everywhere that editors have had enough of his belligerent attitude, deliberate misconstruction of the words of others here and in the RfC, his singular refusal to accept the consensus position by calling this "vote-stacking" is risible. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

More abuse more threats; Widefox before, now Drmies

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

---

I have recently reported Widefox here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:Widefox_Abusive_editor_with_banning_power.. but the report has "vanished" presumably archived ; Widefox is still doing as he pleases and now also supported by Drmies who has decided to "partially-lock" the page because of "vandalism" and now threatens me with the complete lock right here [[45]].

The PXE page is not vandalized, they call vandalize to add a project that competes against the one they "religiously" support; these guys just think they are WP owners.

Is anyone able to help me here? Do you guys think if I really want to "vandalize" the page I'm going to put the energy I'm putting on this fight against these ABUSERS? c'mon 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Still have yet to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS yet? Yes ... when you hit your own head against the wall again and again, it might feel like abuse ... but you're really only abusing yourself ES&L 22:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're upset about a page being semi-protected, why don't you register an account so you can edit it instead of shouting about admin abuse? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually what I read was Drmies telling you that if you kept it up you would be blocked. I think your behavior is far from correct, accurate or within our policies. Anger doesn't help....it just makes me support Drmies should he decide to block you.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@ES&L you are a troll I do not answer trolls.

@Mark Miller, what Drmies did was not listen to any reason and just cast a new threat. MY QUESTION IS STILL ON why the block on that page? where is the vandalism? why just editing and trying to add some KNOWLEDGE on that page is vandalism? NO SIR, enough with this game. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Enough for now. 31 hours for disruptive editing and namecalling. Poor ES&L--an endangered species already, and now called a troll. Seriously, this has gone on long enough, and if you need more context see User_talk:Drmies#Vandalism.3F_where.3F. FWIW, I have no idea what that article is about or what Widefox is trying to accomplish there according to the IP, and what I am supposed to be supporting. This is a combination of "help! admin abuse!" and "it's a conspiracy", on top of the other disruptions. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia is not a game. Due to excessive violations of Wikipedia's core policies, it was necessary to protect the article from continued violations. This is usually done instead of blocking. However, if the same person who was disruptive there continues to be disruptive elsewhere (you know, like ANI for example) and shows absolutely NO understanding nor desire to actually READ, then they're likely to be blocked to protect the project as a whole. Calling an admin or other valuable editor a troll usually isn't a wise move either ... ES&L 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, even calling you a troll is unacceptable! :) Drmies (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to presume to be valuable, other than for the gold in my teeth ES&L 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

IP editor is not honoring my wish to not be contacted by them... [46], after I said [47] and then [48]. Widefox; talk 23:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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

From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't appear fair when the subject of a complaint to AN/I is the same person who blocks the Editor posting the complaint. Clearly, there are many other Admins who frequent this board who could have blocked this user. It lends more weight to 213.37.84.214's argument that he was being threatened by Drmies (I'm not arguing on the merits of his/her complaint, just the response to it).

Editors should feel like they can bring concerns to AN/I without being targeted by the users they have a conflict with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good-faith editors, yes. In other words, I was responding to the merits of the complaint, which are null and void. But I wouldn't have blocked if they had refrained from calling someone a troll, and that's even setting aside the "ABUSER" charge. You may also read the previous thread, the article talk page, and the user talk page. Block decisions aren't (or shouldn't) be made in a vacuum, and the context here is one single user editing against consensus and not paying attention to what, I'm guessing here, a half a dozen editors have told them. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this might not seem obvious, Drmies, but this wasn't a judgment about you, I was just posting a notice of how these moves appear to some regular Editors. For many, perception=reality. I don't think Admins should take action in cases that involve them, even if they made the right call. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

But I think the notion of "involved" is easily overextended. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it easily overextended, it's easily gamed. All a disruptive editor would need to do is target an admin investigating or warning said editor and the admin would be automatically excluded from taking admin action. This is specifically addressed as a caveat in WP:INVOLVED.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the general outline of what Liz is suggesting, I don't think it's applicable here; the block for an attack on a third party, not Drmies. Has the Dr been perfect here? No, they told 213 to "Have a nice day"" on their talk page[49] -- eewww, might as well say "With all due respect" -- cited "vandalism" for protecting the page instead of the proper "disruption editing," and threatened extending the block for serial unblocking requests when everyone (and Yunshui) knows the correct response to that is to remove talk page access. But these are nits in the big picture. While I don't doubt 213's intentions they have not taken aboard how Wikipedia works, and 31 hours is not a very long time. NE Ent 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ent is correct; I did say "have a nice day", and Ent also correctly assessed the spirit in which it was uttered. Let me add, though, that a lot of words preceded that phrase which, I hoped (vainly), would not fall on deaf ears; in other words, it was not intended as a simple and curt dismissal. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Obvious IP sock is obvious. And also blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Aww, Writ Keeper, I was literally just about to remove their post for being an obvious sock... :( Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "The quick and the (metaphorically) hungry" is the law here in the wild jungle that is ANI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes this IP an obvious sock? I genuinely want to know. Which account is he/she is a sock of? Can you connect this IP to a blocked account? I am really curious about this spidey sense that seems to come when an Editor becomes an Admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all admins have such a "sense", in general I do not. I admist i tend to be suspicious of "behaviorial evidence" where no evidence is actually presented. Someone says "it is Obvious that X is a sock of Y, just look at the contributions". It often is not obvious to me, and i've seen action taken on what seems very little evidence -- jsut a few edits. DES ^(talk) 19:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

At times it seems completely random to me. I've seen accounts blocked who have only made two edits, hell, I've seen accounts indefinitely blocked who have made 0 edits! Short of CU, the basis of "behavioral evidence" often seems to be quite ephemeral and insubstantial, like an Admin's "gut feeling".

The message I've picked up from my time reading over AN/I is that one is less likely to be blocked (particularly if one is an IP) if one never questions, reverts or contradicts anyone, if one flies under the radar, stay away from noticeboards, basically if one goes out of their way not to interact with anyone else or do anything to draw attention to oneself. For regular Editors, that approach seems to improve ones longevity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. This seems to apply here: WP:TEARHEADOFF L.

Could you point me to the accounts with zero edits that you've seen blocked on behavioral grounds? That seems pretty surprising and I'd be interested to look into it. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Per MastCell, I would also be intrigued to see your list of such zero-edit accounts. Likely explanations, depending on circumstances, may include 1) edits were made, but to a page that was subsequently deleted; 2) edits were made, but the revisions were individually deleted (either as grossly offensive material, or because they contained private personal information); 3) the blocks were made by a checkuser who carried out an investigation without going through SPI; 4) the new account name was sufficient to tie it to a banned user (if users named BobTheSock1, BobTheSock2, and BobTheSock3 are blocked, I am probably not going to sit on my hands when I see BobTheSock4).

When you've made polite inquiries about such blocks in the past, what sort of response have you received? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probable that most accounts you see "blocked on behaviorable evidence with 0 edits" have in fact made quite a few edits that were deleted - non-admins can't see the "deleted contributions" page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As for blocks done on accounts with zero edits I've seen this about 4 or 5 times and blocks of accounts with less than 5 edits, I've probably seen two dozen times. I look over probably 40-50 different user accounts every day and I'm sorry not to remember a specific IP number. If pressed to speculate (which is a complete guess), I'd say that these are accounts that got swept up in a SPI and were labeled a "sleeper account". I am curious how an IP can create an account without edits as I thought most IPs were dynamic.

Of course, this begs the question, why am I looking at the Contribution pages for random IP accounts? Just trying to get to know WP. I see a wide range of types of IP accounts, some of which go back years, others, just one day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I know of no way an account can have made edits and then have them disappear from their contribution page. Even if they were erased by an Oversighter, there is evidence that an edit was made, just not the content. I am not aware of "deleted contributions" and since I've not encountered a mention of them yet over these past few months hanging around noticeboards, I would think that they aren't commonly done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Deleted contributions" simply means contributions to pages that are later deleted; once the page is deleted, the edits in its history don't show up in a user's contribs. Revdel and oversight leave traces, yes, but I'm not sure the traces extend to the user's contribs: I know that if the username is revdeleted, then it won't show up in the user's list of contribs, and I don't know if oversight leaves an entry in the user contribs list. They both always leave traces in the article's history, yes, but not necessarily the user's. As for this specific IP, an IP address belonging to a European proxy making its first and only post to denounce the admin in an ANI thread created by another IP address belonging to another European proxy (which had been blocked), with not dissimilar language, is not exactly a hard puzzle to figure out (though I could be wrong about the first PI address belonging to a proxy, it is certainly European, at least). I don't know if "IP sock" is technically the right phrase or whatever, but it's pretty certain to be the IP user evading his block, which is what the blocking template I used calls it. Trout me for biting if you deem it necessary, but I'm gonna stand by that decision. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll need to read this twice but, given your explanation, Writ Keeper, it sounds like "deleted contributions" wouldn't account for the odd accounts that are preemptively blocked. I can see how if an article is deleted, the edits and their history would also be deleted but I don't think this would disproportionately affect the IP accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that zero edit accounts and IPs could be blocked for repeatedly triggering the edit filter. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, edit filters are the next on my list to figure out. Thanks, Mark! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't be too much help there, I barely understand the things. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Can admins please take a moment and recall that their position in Wikipedia is to carry out consensus and not to be the "police force" of our policies as if they are laws? As an admin it is not your job to see violations and carry out "justice" summarily. Consensus of the Community needs to be seeked out more often before doing things that could possibly be seen as a COI, such as blocking someone who came to AN/I to report your ass. Admins also should be held to a higher standard and if an admin cant, expect after the fact, realize they are saying dickish comments perhaps they shouldn't be an admin. An admin should never be rude or overly curt. That is unacceptable. Especially when coupled with an attitude of being a policeman in Wikipedia. We don't have laws, we don't have police. Realize that.Camelbinky (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that admins should be held to a higher standard than non-admins, but we're all human. Almost everyone will sometimes be overly curt or rude once in a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

A little concerned about the activity on this article and whether it is fair to the article-subject. User:Keithbob and I seem to be on the same page - the article is over-editorialized and relies heavily on a single author, Robert Young, as a source. That author writes in an op-ed style and his depiction of events conflicts substantially with other sources. WP:BLP is relevant. User:Middayexpress feels the article should be negative and has argued in favor of using primary sources as proper material for contentious material about a BLP.

Keithbob and I have been accused of secretly being paid editors for Bell Pottinger and despite two BLP posts, 1 COIN post, and miles of Talk page discussion, there hasn't really been much progress. Not sure what better way to resolve the issue than post here in hopes that there will be more engagement. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Aaaaaargh. This is a complicated matter that could do with a set of fresh eyes. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite misleading. The matter actually began when a self-admitted Bell Pottinger public relations employee and representative for Matthew Bryden, one HOgilvy, sought to clean up Bryden's wikipedia page on his client's behalf (c.f. [50]). Bryden is a controversial figure who was dismissed last year from the UN for poor performance as the UN's Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, a regional watchdog panel (c.f [51]). With this mandate, Bryden's Wikipedia PR representative contacted the CorporateM account above, who then proceeded to ping his wiki friends and basically tried to remove anything critical of Bryden. That includes everything from the fact that Bryden was fired to his previous place of residence according to his own alma mater. It later came to light almost by accident that CorporateM is himself a PR representative, a fact which he never bothered revealing on the article's talk page. However, on his own user page, CorporateM did express his position on conflict of interest as follows: [52]: "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." This is in direct opposition to WP:COI's instruction that "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first." This past week, CorporateM deleted this surprising Position on COI revelation from his user page [53], though it is of course still stored in the page history. So basically, we have a situation where at least one PR representative was "helping" another PR representative clean up his client's wikipedia bio page, all the while believing that "we serve our client's interests exclusively". What's best for Wikipedia is instead apparently "unethical". Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User: CorporateM has publicly divulged their status as a PR rep in several forums and on several articles going back several months. He/she does not edit in areas where he/she is representing a client. He/she does edit other articles on WP where he/she is not representing a client and makes good faith additions to the further develop the project as a whole including commenting at RfC's and policy discussion and improving content on WP articles like Matthew Bryden. I encourage any editor or Admin to scan the talk pages and decide for themselves which editor is pushing a point of view here. In particular this discussion where several uninvolved editors commented and criticized the use of editorials, self published and primary sources being used to malign the subject. Despite that consensus, it took a month and a thousand words of talk page discussion to remove them because of Middayexpress' continued--I didn't hear that--objections. Now, Middayexpress' last ditch effort is to make a personal attack on CorporateM (unfounded accusations with no diffs are personal attacks) and using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute which is a violation of the WP:COI guideline.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that Keithbob is one of CorporateM's aforementioned wiki friends that he pinged for support ("I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" [54]). They've basically been attempting to remove all critical material on Bryden, typically on the weakest of pretexts. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you're arguing against Editors who know each other from their time on Wikipedia collaborating together? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying the pinging in this instance is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think Middayexpress is saying these editors are proxying for each other (i.e. not using independent judgment) in order to work around the formal restrictions of WP:COI best practices, possibly in some sort of quid pro quo arrangement. E.g. you make my proposed edits and I make yours, and we each claim we have no COI for the changes we're making. Is that correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Bell Pottinger editor posted at COIN and User:Jreferee asked me to chip in on a volunteer basis. These kinds of personal attacks and conspiracy theories are standard fair for this article unfortunately... CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The quotes and difs above speak for themselves; no personal attacks necessary. As for the Bell Pottinger public relations representative, he indeed posted at COIN, and I linked to the very post where he said that he would do that. He also posted on CorporateM's talk page and repeatedly, typically requesting (and more often than not receiving) direct assistance. This was also not the first time that the account contacted CorporateM. They were apparently already acquainted before this affair [55]. Missed that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Unless I'm way off-track, CorporateM's admitted behavior is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT, not to mention WP:COI; his/her statement that he/she serves only the client's interests and not Wikipedia's interests is clear evidence of WP:NOTHERE, and the decision to remove his/her COI disclosure is inexcusable. It's a pattern of terrible abuse of editing privileges, and harsh sanctions are appropriate IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll also note that both CorporateM and KeithBob have exhibited extremely precocious editing skills for having only created their accounts in the last few weeks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC) stricken per apology previously made and deleted by another editor in good faith

• Fleischman, what? CorporateM and Keithbob have been here for forever. And CorporateM's statement, cited above, is interpreted in a completely incorrect manner. Midday, I just reread your comments. You're stooping pretty low there. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly my fault since much of what I posted are CorporateM's own comments. I couldn't make that up if I tried. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• What on earth are you talking about, Dr. Fleischman? Both those editors have been around for years. If you're going to snipe at people, at least try to keep it plausible even if not true. The same goes for the MEAT / COI / CANVAS / NOTHERE alphabet soup. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've been here about 3-5 years now and have 16,000 edits and 13 GAs to my name. Also, it has been confirmed many-a-times when POV pushers attempt to use my COI disclosure as leverage that I may edit articles where I have no COI just like any volunteer. Midday's links and post show the type of extreme personal attacks and POV pushing we have come to expect. For example, I completely re-wrote my user-page, cut it in half, and he has selected a specific edit to make it seem like something nefarious is going on. It's just trolling and resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories in order to do whatever it takes to make sure the article reflects his point-of-view, rather than a neutral point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of the most telling difs and quotes in my post above are to CorporateM's own remarks. That includes his own longstanding Position on COI. It's unreasonable to expect people to turn a blind eye to this surprising revelation just because he deleted it a few days before posting here. That's actually all the more reason to notice it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Beginning at the middle of the Matthew Bryden article,[56] it loses its focus of being a written account of Bryden and instead serves as a coatrack for the opinions of a variety of people, none of whom are Bryden. The article reads "According to author Michelle Shephard," "According to journalist Robert Young Pelton," "Puntland President Abdirahman Farole suggested that Bryden was," "Ahmed spent 30 minutes of a July speech criticizing Bryden,". None of these people qualify as experts on Matthew Bryden or qualify as experts on written accounts of another person's life. Their views belong in their own Wikipedia article or in an article on United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia, but not in the Matthew Bryden article. Some of source material does convey chronological life event information about Matthew Bryden, and that's fine for the biography article. However the rest needs to be removed from the article. Author Michelle Shephard ebook has a quote from Bryden,[57] and an independent third party source republishing a Bryden quote could make that Bryden quote fair game for the Bryden biography article. Instead, Shephard's view of what that means is added to the Bryden article. That is not how source material should be used to develop a biography. As for COI, CorporateM sates he does not have a COI with the Matthew Bryden topic and no one has posted and diffs that establish otherwise. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP indicates that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." That said, Farole and Ahmed are quoted because Bryden and his Monitoring Group accused them of wrongdoing, so their replies are appended for balance. Shephard is also a secondary source relaying Bryden's views on a political issue related to his previous position at the Monitoring Group. If you look at the Wikipedia bios of other controversial figures, they follow a similar model but are often way more critical (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman). This bio is actually pretty tame in comparison. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support removing all of it as an interim solution, and re-introducing content there is consensus for. But some of that really does belong. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of it belongs, including a lot of material that was removed for no legitimate reason. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In earlier discussions I supported including some of the material that Midday sought to keep, though not all of it. I can't remember if any of those items are mentioned above; it's on the record though. But in general I note three tendencies: that other editor (forget their name--it's on record too) was a bit too positive on the subject, Midday was much too negative and included material that IMO was unacceptable, and Corporate sailed mostly down the middle, though I did not agree with every one of their exclusions. But to my mind Corporate Minion was the most neutral of them all. Then again, this has been hammered out on the talk page and, I believe, on the BLPN board and possibly on a few user talk pages; for my money, I'd give Bobrayner free rein and let them have at it (Dr. Fleischman, we await your apology: sooner is always better than later). Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything I posted on Bryden is factual. But as I've learned, it's those facts themselves that are more often than not inconvenient. By contrast, the majority of CorporateM's edits were in agreement with his fellow public relations representative HOgilvy. There was very little divergence in opinion between the two. In hindsight, it's difficult to see how there could be since CorporateM apparently believes a PR rep's duty is to exclusively serve the interests of his/her client rather than Wikipedia's interests (his words). At any rate, I would like to find a middle ground with the PR reps/friends, but this will take some doing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your astute comments and observations. If you've visited the article talk page you will also notice that CorporateM has demonstrated an immense amount of patience on the talk page for months (and myself to a lesser degree). The article was highlighted at BLPN twice and outside eyes have come in but Midday seems to have an aversion to consensus and when CM and I walk away he skews the article again. So while I do support an uninvolved editor like User:Bobrayner making deletions as needed to create NPOV for the article I would also appreciate if some other folks could keep it on their watchlist as I think Corporate and I are pretty worn out from months of copious talk page activity with Midday. User Midday is a prolific editor who I'm sure has made many valuable contributions to the project. I hope that he/she is able to step back and reconsider their approach to the Matthew Bryden BLP and move on to other more productive activities. Thanks to all who have given input here. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Patience obviously works both ways. On the other hand, pinging one's friends for support does not at all constitute outside involvement. Quite the opposite. The solution here is genuine outside involvement by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to prejudice or otherwise influence his/her actions. For this same reason, the editor(s) also cannot himself/herself be a public relations/media representative. Middayexpress (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that just because someone is pinged by Corporate (or anyone else) they're automatically their "friend" and thus, as you suggest, incapable if independent judgment? The instances where I agree with you and disagreed with them is sufficient evidence of the falsehood of this premise. I like to think that Corporate pinged me for my extensive knowledge and impeccable judgment. As for "genuine outside involvement"--you have been editing articles in that (geographic) area for years, and by your own argument you could be discredited for having a COI; from the discussions it's clear that you also don't come to the negotiation table without prejudice. As far as I'm concerned that does not discredit you anymore than it does me and, I might add, before you know it (extending your argument not by much) any kind of involvement is suspicious and WP should only be edited by 12-year olds who know nothing about nothing, who couldn't point out Mogadishu on a map if it bit them in the ass, in the name of impartiality.

Of course a PR rep's edit should be scrutinized carefully, as was done in this case by all parties, including Corporate--and I challenge you to find a PR person more transparent than Corporate (never mind the fact that he is not on anyone's payroll in this particular case, as far as I know) in their dealings with companies/articles/organizations where they might have a genuine COI. Besides, it's unlikely that four editors (counting myself) would all have the same damning POV in a case like this, which I think is another of your suggestions. I stand completely neutral towards the subject of this article, and my POV is NPOV. That doesn't make me right in individual editorial decisions, but whether they're made correctly or incorrectly, they're editorial decisions, unguided by any kind of partiality toward the involved governments, journalists, publications, freedom fighters, weapons dealers, non-governmental organizations, and Wikipedia editors. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's bizarre to me to keep reading that you somehow think that "pinging one's friends for support" is a bad thing. It's called collaboration and as long as one isn't canvassing Editors to come participate in a deletion decision, RfA or contentious discussion, it is a good practice that happens all over Wikipedia every day, often organized through WikiProjects or more informally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, there's an appropriate notification protocol to follow when seeking additional input. Pinging random friends -- which CorporateM certainly did; every editor he pinged was a prior amicable acquiantance of his, with no connection to the topic other than that (one actually gave him an award of some kind [58]) -- is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). WP:COI is also quite clear that "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". It's in the first paragraph and bolded for emphasis. This is in direct conflict with CorporateM's apparent general position on COI [59]: "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." At any rate, given the foregoing, the only conceivable solution is genuine outside involvement i.e. by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions. This should be an acceptable compromise for all parties interested in a neutral page. Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're wikilawyering, clutching at every straw because consensus might be against what it is that you want the article to present. One could read your commentary and opinions there as evidence of extreme bias against the subject of the article; your insistence on unreliable sources to make the article state that the subject was fired from that UN group could, hypothetically, serve as evidence. Mind you, that's based on actual things you said. HOgilvy clearly had a certain interest in the article, and so, I surmise, do you: HOgilvy in favor, you against. Corporate, Keithbob, me, Bobrayner, we are not (AFAIK) interested in the subject as such. And might I reiterate, for the now-bored onlooker, that Corporate got involved with this to prevent COI editing? This article, Middayexpress, is better off without you.

If anyone still cares, the general pattern displayed in this thread is evident on the talk page as well. Midday was at pains to get an editorial from an online organization accepted as a reliable source; Corporate points out (in Talk:Matthew_Bryden#Hiiran_Online_.26_other_op-eds) that Hiriian Online is not a reliable source. Look at the paragraph starting "Here we go", where Corporate makes a pretty convincing case that the website is run by a lobbying group. Midday's response? "Policies and guidelines come up in many Wikipedia discussions..." followed by a complete avoidance of the issue. This is why Midday's contributions here are ultimately useless and their behavior frustrating. They bring sources and context, which is helpful, and refuse to back off even after everyone else (that is, four editors, not counting HOgilvy of course--note Lexein's contributions) disagrees with them. And now this interminable thread, full of wishy-washy nonsense about suspected involvement when there is not a shred of evidence of foul play on Corporate's side, again halting progress on the article: I propose a topic ban for this article for MiddayExpress. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the editors named above are CorporateM's wiki friends who he pinged for input. They are certainly not outside editors in this particular instance, and have no connection with the topic other than that shared friendship. So the fact that they see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything isn't exactly unexpected. This is the definition of inappropriate notification, as the WP:COI links and quote above show. If I were to have done the same (as I easily could've, btw), CorporateM et al. would surely in turn have complained about it. This is almost certain since, rather ironically, he already complained that my contacting another editor who by contrast had already edited the page would constitute canvassing [60]. At any rate, my interest in the article is as a WikiProject Somalia member, which this bio on the former UN Coordinator of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group certainly falls under. It's in this capacity that I edited the page, just like any other Project page. What first caught my attention was some editor (CorporateM) removing huge swathes of material from the bio with no prior talk page explanation or discussion. I did notice, though, one post by another account (HOgilvy) requesting a cleanup of some sort [61]. This account described himself as as a Bell Pottinger public relations representative and said that Bryden was his client. We already had problems in the past on other Project pages with Bell Pottinger PR reps, so that disclosure certainly caught my eye as well. I assumed that there was some sort of connection between the edits, which was confirmed when CorporateM linked me to a COIN discussion that HOgilvy had posted where he requested assistance. Since then, what I've been trying to do is retain some sort of balance on the article. This has been a challenge when CorporateM et al. seem to be believe that any material critical of Bryden is unacceptable, not just the Hiiraan Online piece (see here for a discussion of that source in its proper context). However, Bryden is a controversial figure on the Horn of Africa political scene, so some degree of criticism is to be expected. Attempting to ban me or any other editor from the topic is not a solution, as all that does is remove any semblance of balance from the page. The only neutral solution is what Keithbob proposed above i.e. entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party. My one condition is that this editor(s) should not have had any prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties since that might serve to influence his/her actions. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think any objective observer who looks at the talk page discussions will see your comments for what they're worth; at the very least, they'll see that you are incorrect in your easy claim that everyone pinged saw eye to eye with Corporate. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Of the topic-ban per user:Drmies. A couple clarifications are in order though. The problem with the sources were that they were op-eds written by opposing political interests, not that they were published by Hiiran online, which may be a reliable source in other cases. And the UN DID fire Bryden, or at the very least they claim to have. If a new editor not previously involved (User:bobrayner was mentioned a couple times) wants to take a crack at it, I wouldn't mind abstaining as well for the sake of keeping the peace. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

See above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The only source for the firing is a report by the Inner City Press--and I assume that this document, a primary source which does nothing more than list the next members of the UN Monitoring Group and says nothing about Bryden, is still in the article at Midday's insistence. Thanks for the other clarification as well. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • A reasonable point of discussion between civil and thoughtful editors. IMO, Inner City Press does seem like it may be a bit of an advocacy-type source. You know, one of those, "we uncover the truth not covered by mainstream media" types. And employers will often claim they did the firing while employees have a different POV. In this case in particular there is a political backdrop that makes it more complicated as well. I think Inner City Press may be acceptable to use, as long as it's done with caution. But that is a discussion best left for another time, after an environment is created where a thoughtful and civil discussion can occur. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the UN headquarters, the Federal Reserve and various other agencies [62]. This is why its byline location is signed "United Nations", and how it managed to report on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening [63], [64]. This as well is explained on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• The reasoning given here by DrFleischman and others to suggest CorporateM is meating brins up an interesting hypothetical. Suppose I edit a certain article and think a section needs to be rewritten. Another user who also edits the article thinks the same. By the explanation given by some, I am violating WP:MEAT. KonveyorBelt 04:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, at least in my mind. My understanding is that CorporateM and KeithBob were proxying for each other rather than exercising independent judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The solution seems to be to entrust the page to an uninvolved editor(s) with no prior association with any of the involved parties. This uninvolved editor(s) would then gradually edit the page, explaining each edit on the talk page as he/she went along. The editor(s) would also consider/hear the feedback of the erstwhile involved parties. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The above discussion focuses on the content dispute, rather than the conduct dispute, and misses the bigger point. CorporateM has admitted (here for example) he/she frequently edits as a paid advocate, he/she serves his/her client's interests exclusively (see here) in direct violation of WP:COI's prime directive. (bolded in first para: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") My understanding is that Middayexpress has accused CorporateM and KeithBob of proxying for each other, and those accusations should be taken seriously in light of these COI issues. Regardless, even if they're incorrect, by his/her own admissions CorporateM has committed gross violations of WP:COI and should be sanctioned accordingly. Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute; that's what DR is for. As for the proposal to topic ban Middayexpress, I make the (very reasonable) request that WP policy be cited and discussed before sanctions are imposed simply for slowing down "progress" on an article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM's userpage doesn't quite say that. Cherrypicking a diff and then misrepresenting it as a violation of a guideline (not a policy) in order to call for sanctions is a Bad Thing. And then you go on to ask for a policy basis for topic-banning Middayexpress? That's an impressive feat of doublethink. You're really not helping your case here; if you think the facts support your way forward, bring some actual facts - or step aside. We have enough drama already, we don't need people making up more. bobrayner (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with my so-called cherry picking? Is anyone even going to address Middayexpress's allegations, or are we choosing to sweep them under the rug? And I thought WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE were frequently cited in support of sanctions? And, again, what did Middayexpress do wrong? I'm not saying he/she did nothing wrong, just that as a general practice it would be a good and reasonable thing to identify what rule was violated before sanctions are imposed. What am I missing here? (P.S. There's no reason for me to "step aside" when I have no dog in this fight and I'm not an administrator.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect, that is not what I'm arguing. Please see below for that and the way forward from here. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering this discussion is going to get archived soon, can we refocus on finding resolution? Someone should suggest a course of action, such as a topic ban, article-protection, mediation, whatever in a new sub-section, for voting and consensus so the issue can get fixed. It's not as if all this back and forth sniping is productive - and I am concerned it will get archived without any meaningful solution, as has already occurred in the past at BLP and COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party has already been proposed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: The issue is essentially a content dispute, which unfortunately seems to have gotten out of hand. It makes little outward sense when you consider the fact that although CorporateM has admitted to being a paid public relations representative, he insists that Bryden is not his client. CorporateM is also not a WikiProject Somalia or WikiProject Eritrea member. In other words, he has no declared connection to the topic. His stated reason for editing the page is that he was pinged to do so at COIN [65]. Besides CorporateM's stated Position on COI, what makes the situation especially awkward is that HOgilvy is himself a paid PR rep and specifically for Bryden. HOgilvy and CorporateM also apparently previously worked on something else together [66]. So although CorporateM in this instance appears to have volunteered his services, he was hardly a neutral volunteer to begin with. Given the foregoing, the simplest solution to the impasse would be to entrust editing of the page to a neutral third party i.e. to a genuinely uninvolved editor(s), with no prior association with any of the involved parties that might influence his/her actions. He/she would then follow the protocol suggested above at 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)It sounds like there may be some common ground here, but I'm no less troubled than before by your allegations. Drmies et al: I understand this is a nasty can of worms, but it represents a potentially pervasive practice of end-running around the formalities of WP:COI that, IMO, could damage WP and its credibility in the long run. If the allegations are true, then that has troubling ramifications not just on the accused editors but on the whole community, particularly in light of the recent related media stories about paid editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Would this by any chance be one of the paid editing stories in question? I actually dealt directly with the "Biggleswiki" Bell Pottinger public relations representative that is profiled in that piece, and on the very Dahabshiil wiki page that is also mentioned therein (another WikiProject Somalia page, incidentally). Hence, my preference for entrusting the Bryden page to uninvolved volunteer editors. Middayexpress (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I appreciate your comments. DrFleischman, there is no reason to presume that just because Corp has a fully disclosed COI in one area or another, they should have some kind of blatant COI here--that doesn't make him necessarily neutral, but that's another matter. I think that three editors have said that by now; time to listen--you can't prove that Corp has a COI here just because they say they have one somewhere else. Frankly, your claim is a bit irritating, and I think you're in a hole and should stop digging. (For instance, I think you're inflating Midday's "allegations" in order to save your first unfortunate remark here.) Let me reiterate what I indicated before: I think Midday, Corp, etc. are in principle perfectly fine as editors for this article--the case for HOgilvy is obviously different. My beef is with Midday's behavior in the discussion, which I consider to be less than helpful, but I am not claiming they should be topic-banned because they have a COI or are incapable of editing neutrally, not at all. And, again reiterating, I do not agree with how Midday seems to define "uninvolved", but that's a matter of judgment. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

True, I don't see any direct evidence of a COI, but based on Middayexpress's allegations one wouldn't expect to find any. There would be circumstantial evidence in the form of communications between and among the conspiring parties, which is what Middayexpress may have been pointing to. I agree that these communications viewed in isolation aren't a problem (and in hindsight, they might not constitute improper canvassing) but are they signs of a larger, very bad pattern? We don't know because no one cares to take the allegations seriously. I find it alarming that CorporateM's actions would receive zero scrutiny (as far as I can tell) when he/she has stated that he/she regularly edits in a paid capacity while representing his/her clients' interests exclusively and at the expense of the project. Does CorporateM get a free pass because of his/her lengthy editing history and friendly manner? Don't mind me, I'm just the canary in the coal mine. Nothing to see here. This will be my last comment in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that would be the most obvious example of a straw man - putting words in my mouth like "at the expense of the project". When in actuality, my words are more like[67] "It is in the client's best interest I think. The best way to ensure the durability of the content and deflect COI criticisms is to simply make sure the content itself is exceptional" regarding bringing my COI works up to Good Article status. COI has almost nothing to do with this article whatsoever, except that a PR rep brought the article to the community's attention by asking us to add more primary sources. My response instead was to delete most of the article, which relied heavily on junk sources. The COI and canvassing accusations are just the actions of an editor frustrated that consensus is not in their favor and determined to make the article reflect their point-of-view by resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Midday is the one violating WP:COI by making unfounded COI accusations in an attempt to win an argument.

In any case, this string has now become sufficiently long and convoluted enough, full of personal attacks and a pouncing comment from Midday on every editor with input, it's becoming increasingly unlikely anyone will bother to read the entire string or care to get involved. Who would volunteer to dive head-first into so much drama? CorporateM (Talk) 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations? Your user page of longstanding stated that you are a paid editor and that your Position on COI is that "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." Those are your own words, not mine. Pinging other users with no connection to the topic at hand is also an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). And please don't argue that you didn't ping them cause you did, and you said that you would too (viz. "I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" [68]; "I've attempted to summarize the issues here and asked Drmies to get involved so we could have more than two editors and maybe figure things out" [69]). These are your own words and actions, so be sure to assume responsiblity for them. Middayexpress (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Per the discussion above, I suggest voluntary topic bans for Midday and myself, from article-space and Talk-space, while a new, previously uninvolved editor(s) from this board boldly make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: As nominator. Plenty of other articles for us to work on and no reason to feed the drama on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support: I would support the proposal above for voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it: a) applies to all the involved parties equally, b) is temporary/lasts until the issue is resolved, c) the uninvolved editor(s) has had no previous dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions, d) the uninvolved editor(s) for the same reason must be a volunteer and not a paid editor. Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • But that would disqualify all other editors mentioned here, no? (Including me, I suppose.) Then who's left who cares? Or, I don't see why bobrayner and Keithbob and Lexein and perhaps others should be excluded just because the two main parties are recused. I'll gladly recuse myself, since I have little interest in this biography, and I am sure you don't want me editing that article, but I see no grounds to disqualify the others--except, again, for HOgilvy who, setting aside the presumption of good faith I usually have, should probably not be editing this article. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As a Bryden official public relations representative, WP:COISELF bars HOgilvy from editing the page directly. Keithbob and Lexein were both pinged to the page by CorporateM. Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM. To ensure neutrality, the uninvolved editor(s) shouldn't have any previous associations or dealings with any of the involved parties (myself included). The Wikipedia:List of administrators seems a neutral place to select a candidate(s) from. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. I see no valid reason to bar those editors from editing the article. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(Um, COI PR article editing by HOgilvy for small corrections with WP:IRS sources, and COI PR discussion on talk page for everything else, would be appropriate, IMHO). --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, seeing as how WP:COISELF stipulates that "you should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics[...] This includes people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life[...] If you have a personal connection to a topic or a person, (such as being an employee, familial ties, or other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you really that deliberately dimwitted? I choose my words very carefully, as in "small corrections", just as allowed explicitly in WP:COI, and "discussion on talk page for everything else", just as explicitly stated in WP:COI. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Insults are uncalled for (see WP:CIV). That said, the only exception WP:COI makes in this regard is with defamation or a serious error, and even here there's a very involved administrative protocol that must concurrently be followed: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly[...] If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your selective reading notwithstanding, I presume. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob and Lexein participated in the talk page discussion after being pinged by CorporateM. Keithbob also edited the page itself. That makes them involved editors. This proposal is for a new, previously uninvolved editor(s). Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, Middayexpress, with respect, you're really going about this all wrong. Look at my edit history. Take me to any disciplinary or sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry noticeboard you like. Not only will any kind of charge you could possibly fabricate be instantly thrown out, but you'd better be wary of WP:BOOMERANG. I'll edit any article I want, and I'll discuss on any article talk page I want, because I've never been article-banned, topic-banned, blocked, or disciplined anywhere, in seven years here. I'll delete claims sourced by unreliable or biased sources everywhere I find them, because you don't get to turn Wikipedia into your own personal attack forum. And I'll support on-policy edits by any editor I choose, based on my experience and familiarity with relevant policies, namely WP:BLP. If it takes this ANI for you to learn how to edit neutrally, so be it. Learn or be banned, that's my advice to you. Don't say I didn't warn you: I warned you directly that you really wouldn't like it if I got involved. Do you know why? Because you're wrong about nearly every claim you've made, and I'm not wrong. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please settle down and kindly stop WP:SHOUTing. You are putting words in my mouth and answering allegations that were never even made. Everything that I actually indicated in my last comment is factual. There is a difference between appropriate notification for input and inappropriate notification; if there wasn't, the canvassing policy would serve no purpose. Pinging/contacting an editor with no connection to the topic -- other than the fact that they happen to be friends or acquaintances -- is a clear example of inappropriate notification: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)[...] Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand[...] Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). This happens to be what CorporateM did (another e.g.: "I was even more surprised that User:Lexein or someone else didn't revert him back[...] But if nobody else does the reverting, than it is inappropriate for me to get into an edit-war just between the two of us" [70]). If I had done the same, this surely would not have been difficult to appreciate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have frequently worked with Corporate M. When he edits for a client, he is scrupulously neutral, though his style still sometimes shows traces of his long experience in the PR industry,. He also edits more generally, andI respect his courageous willingness --especially for someone himself known for his declared COI editing-- to work in areas which have been thoroughly disrupted by others editors with a declared or undeclared COI. When he does work in these areas I trust both his objectivity and judgement, including his awareness of the problems that may be present in other people's editing. I have not myself investigated the sources in this area, but if anyone can straighten them out, he can do so, and so far from banning him from the subject, I think we should be encouraging him to take it in hand. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that my COI work is actually related to this article, but I am both flattered, but hesitant to accept User:DGG's compliments. Sometimes I over-compensate for my COI and other times it shows more than I think. But where I do have a COI, I lean on other editors to keep me on the straight and narrow and they rarely fail me. Since I do not have a COI here, it's a bit of an offshoot topic. If someone wants to discuss my COI work, they should start a separate string at WP:COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • [Edit conflict] In addition to User:CorporateM, User:Drmies and myself, other editors like User:Lexein, User:HOgilvy and User:DGG, have been active on the talk page. Maybe they would like to comment on this situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Also note that concerns for this article have been posted recently at BLPN by User:Jreferee on Sept 2nd and by CorporateM on Sept 13th.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • None of this has anything to do with "pinging" or any sort of deliberate ganging up by experienced editors. It only has to do with awful bias by an intransigent editor, PR editing done without the cleanest possible hands, and a bunch of long time editors (including one open PR editor editing cleanly outside his PR area) stepping in to try to clean up the toxic, biased, badly sourced mess. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it has plenty to do with pinging/inappropriate notification. Had that not happened (or had I been the one doing the pinging), the proceedings and involved parties would have been (and indeed were up to that point) very different. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep it up. I couldn't do a better job of getting you topic banned than exactly what you're doing. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors' only concern should be to create as reliable an encyclopedia as possible. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what you're doing here? We always exclude unreliable sources and avoid bias and unbalanced and unattributed sourcing in BLP, but that's not your thing, I guess. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear. I will be sure to keep that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support voluntary topic ban by Middayexpress, voluntary article-edit ban by HOgilvy. By wanting everyone out of the pool, Middayexpress assumes bad faith, and wholeheartedly declares the pool contaminated, and so de rigeur supports reverting the article back to before the "firing" edits were added. You don't evacuate the pool and then just leave the turd floating in it. Alternatively, Middayexpress either trusts experienced editors who understand BLP and writing neutrally, or not. If so, Middayexpress will voluntarily self-topic ban. If not, then we know Middayexpress's agenda. What Middayexpress fails to understand that even the worst news can be presented neutrally, and attributed to the source, so the reader can immediately glean the apparent bias in the source. See? Done. One sentence. In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all the situation or what transpired. The fact is, if I had a so-called "agenda", I wouldn't be willing to entrust the article to an uninvolved volunteer editor(s) as I've repeatedly proposed. You'll note above the link I produced pointing to the List of Wikipedia administrators... now surely there's no better place to select a genuinely neutral candidate from. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretend as much as you like, but noone is buying it. Your take on events is quite skewed and not at all in line with policy, guideline, or essay. Nice try. Plus, again, you fail to address your lack of comprehension of neutral writing, and fail to respect that comprehension and skill practiced by others. The fact that I object to your failures has no effect on my ability to be neutral with respect to article content, even to the extent of trivially and completely fixing all of your mistakes in one step. You continue to fail to ask for help from knowledgeable editors who really know how to accomplish neutral writing. Your inability to discuss effectively is evident from your edit count and edit history, given that only about (generously) eight percent of your edits have been performed in Talk pages. Only your voluntary withdrawal from that article, and corrective involvement directly in it by myself and other editors who have earned my respect, will save it. Your demand that anyone who has even discussed the article stop editing it is a transparent gambit, and it is in bad faith. Such a demand would, if in good faith, be accompanied by a willingness to revert to before your edits. Hence, your demand is in bad faith. Answer my question: do you want me to get involved? I haven't gotten involved in the editing of the article yet, in case you hadn't noticed. Consider your answer carefully. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal jabs aside, as one of the main contributors to WikiProject Somalia, I am a knowledgeable editor in my own right and have certainly helped build many a project page. That is why most of my contributions are indeed to article-space. Project members can vouch for that. As for the article in question, I never demanded that anyone who has even discussed the page stop editing it. I pointed out that the proposal CorporateM made was for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)", and I indicated that I supported a voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it applied to all the involved parties equally. Anyway, that was a while ago, prior to Obiwankenobi's helpful remarks, after which I agreed to his suggestions, including recusing myself from the article-space and instead engaging in civil talk page discourse. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't say you didn't: you did. Are you really that deliberately ignorant of what you wrote? Now I dread even looking at WikiProject Somalia, given the gaming and bad faith editing and bad faith accusations you've spread around here. I abhor the now necessary task having to vet every single claim and cited source you've ever added anywhere. Just because you've gotten away with something for apparently years doesn't mean you were ever right about any of it. 80,000 edits of the low quality you performed at the BLP under dispute? Horrifying to consider. You just don't seem to get it. Stop discussing on article Talk page as long as you persist in campaigning against the letter and spirit of BLP. Article Talk is not your private learning experience zone; do that at IRC, your own Talk page, and Help. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me and vice versa. We only just met the other day asfaik. You are also not in a position to tell me what to do. For the rest, please see WP:CIV. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress

• Support as nominator for persistent counter-consensus editing and disruptive Talk page participation, such as abusive COI accusations, ABF, personal attacks, etc. As mentioned above, I would volunteer for an IBAN myself to reduce drama, but it doesn't seem like it would matter - being that I can't force others to volunteer for one and if we all the involved editors withdrew, there would be no one left to edit the article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Based on this thread and my experience on the talk page there doesn't seem to be much willingness to collaborate or respect consensus. The subject of this BLP deserves neutral editing by this community. If Midday is topic banned I would be happy to walk away from the BLP and allow any other editors to adjust it as they see fit. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The discussion was between myself, Bryden's official PR rep, another paid editor/CorporateM, and acquaintances of CorporateM's that he later on pinged for input (such as Keithbob above). Most of the actual editing, however, was between myself, CorporateM and Keithbob, and took place after the initial discussion page posts by CorporateM's other pinged parties. So talk of a retroactively applicable consensus does not apply. That said, I indicated earlier that like CorporateM, I was willing to voluntarily withdraw from editing the page until the content issue is resolved. However, note that the stated proposal was only for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)". To ensure neutrality, my suggestion was that this new, previously uninvolved editor(s) is selected from the List of Wikipedia administrators rather than this board. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears, though, and instead the very editors that CorporateM pinged for support are now ironically trying to topic ban me from the page. Clearly, there's a misunderstanding here about what constitutes WP:CANVASSING. I'll contact the editors who drafted that policy for clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Good luck with that. Why you'd want an admin to do this job is not clear to me. What CorporateM was supposed to be canvassing about is also not clear. CorporateM's messages were limited, neutral, and open--and they would have to be non-partisan, since he cannot possibly know what I would think of Bryden and his biography (in part because he couldn't, in part because I didn't have any thoughts on a man I'd never heard of before). Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just it. The problem is both in the choice of editors ("users with no significant connection to the topic at hand") and the notification method used/pinging ("soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). One obviously doesn't ping strangers, only people one already knows/acquaintances. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I was asked by Middayexpress to opine on the issue of WP:CANVASS here, as I'd been involved in editing that policy and proposing changes in the past. This is a delicate situation. I've looked over the notifications by CorporateM, and while they were generally neutral, there were targeted at a specific set of experienced editors, some of whom presumably have had interactions with CorporateM in the past (in what guise I haven't taken the time to dig). I don't think this was a chummy notification of CorporateM's best pals, but the selection of editors could have been biased towards editors who CorporateM may have believed would agree with them on the general issue of sourcing around BLPs - this could have been unconscious or perhaps it didn't even happen; another perfectly reasonable explanation is that CorporateM selected a few wise editors who had deep experience in BLPs w/o any particular thought as to how they would come down on any particular side of a content dispute. This is the reason the canvassing policy specifically asks you not to target specific users unless you can demonstrate some previous involvement, to avoid the appearance of vote stacking. Nonetheless, on the scale of 1-10 of canvass violations, I would rate this at about a 2, since this is not an RFC, nor an AFD, and there isn't any !voting going on here, rather it is a slow simmering content dispute, into which it is almost always a good idea to add a few more neutral heads, and such collaboration happens all the time - indeed, DrMies talk page is a veritable cornicopia of "Hi Drmies, something's happening at this article you've never touched before, would you mind taking a look?" Thus, CorporateM's idea of bringing more bodies to the party was a good one, I just think in retrospect given the blowback and the rather tense editing which precluded it, it could have been handled in a bit more of a collaborative fashion, and with a notification that was slightly more neutral (for example, here we have "Well, instead I started taking a heavy axe to it, because it was full of primary sources, op-eds and the like. When I started cutting the controversies too, I started bumping into disagreements and edit-conflicts, etc. with another editor." - it's not quite neutral, as they are positioning themselves in the "right" - e.g. who wouldn't want to cut primary sources and op-eds, and the other editor in the "wrong", because they disagreed). I myself try to use {{pls}} for any such notifications, without adding too much comment. Another way would have been proposing/agreeing upon a set of neutral/uninvolved editors along with Middayexpress who would be notified, or by using dispute resolution / 3rd opinion or other facilities available for these situations. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this merits much sanction, except perhaps walking CorporateM past the fish market so they can smell the fresh trout - but in my mind this isn't worth even a minnow.

I do feel in general, given the tenor of the conversation above, the two key actors involved to date, Middayexpress and CorporateM, should voluntarily step away from the article for the time being, and a broader set of notifications about this article should be placed at 3-5 notice boards/wiki projects to get more neutral eyes on the article. I would also strongly suggest to Middayexpress (and others) that they also assume good faith w.r.t CorporateM - I haven't had many (or any?) interactions with them but from afar they are certainly one of the more full-o-disclosure paid editors at the project - we have oodles of COI editors who never declare themselves as such, and CorporateM seems to be much more circumspect than others - as such, we should give them the benefit of the doubt here and not make accusations of some sort of behind-the-scenes quid pro quo arrangement. Ultimately, this is a content dispute, so we should all simmer down on the alphabet soup of accusations, provide some broad (and repeated if necessary) notifications to attract some other editors to the cause, and focus on the article content. An instructive example can be found at Robert_Clark_Young, who committed several "crimes" against the wiki, yet the article itself is rather neutral, balanced, and well sourced. The sausage factory that made it that way was a bit ugly, but ultimately commonsense and reason and calm thinking prevailed. If we can do it for Young, we can do it for Bryden. There isn't a rush on Bryden's article, and I think setting up some general principles for sourcing (what sources should be allowed) and coming to rough consensus around that, then rebuilding the article around those is the best path. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Based on my brief reading to date, I would oppose a formal topic ban for Middayexpress at this point, provided they ease up on the alphabet soup of accusations, and consider self-recusing themselves from edits to the article and participating in a civil/non-combative manner on the talk page instead.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the refreshingly even-handed assessment, Obiwankenobi. I do not object to self-recusing myself from edits to the article-space and focusing instead on civil talk page discourse. The Robert Clark Young example cited above is especially helpful; I agree that that indeed is an instructive model to follow. Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Did we really have to bring up that example? Obi? That's a painful blast from the past... Thanks, BTW, for that lengthy analysis: your time and effort are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A few other thoughts - on the subject of neutral editors, I don't know most participating there except Drmies, who is a deeply experienced editor on BLPs, so I would be very comfortable with his neutrality on this subject. My perusal of the talk page also suggests that the other editors who came into the discussion - even if the notification wasn't 100% ideal - are arguing from a position of policy and BLP, and even though they disagree with you at points I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. It can be hard to write a neutral piece when most pieces are negative, so this requires some delicate handling, and patience. I also think the one editor with a proclaimed COI has been very forthright about same, so we shouldn't shame them for having openly declared a COI and proposing edits on the talk page. I can see from your history that you edit a lot of articles on Somalia and are well versed on the region and issues thereof, but you need to be careful to ensure your own views aren't coloring your approach on this article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do edit a lot of WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea pages, as I am a member of both Projects. That's what brought me to the Bryden page (he's the former Coordinator for the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group). My skepticism with regard to the neutrality of public relations representatives was shaped by a previous encounter with another such PR rep on the Dahabshiil project page. He didn't disclose that he worked for Bell Pottinger and that Dahabshiil was his client, and there was a big scandal over this. HOgilvy did, however, disclose that Bryden was his client and I commended him for that, though I gotta admit I was still a little apprehensive about the whole thing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Point of information: I have participated at BLPN for years and have almost 300 edits to that noticeboard alone. I have written a few BLP's, reviewed a few at AfC, brought a few to GA status, and reviewed a few for GA status. Overall, I'd say I've made very significant contributions to more than 100 BLP's, and minor contributions to a few hundred more during my 5 years at WP. Many of 'significant contribution BLPs' are listed in the Projects section of my user page in case anyone wants to see a partial list. Peace, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, and would hence add you to the list of "neutral editors who should be allowed to have a go at this" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And I will recuse myself, since my admin status may color how others perceive me. (Midday's suggestion to look at a list of admins to find neutral editors isn't a very good one.) In addition, though Midday hasn't said it in so many words, my involvement would probably hinder their acceptance of any resulting version. I don't mind recusing myself, by the way, since I have no interest in Bryden and I hate editing biographies. BTW, I have faith in Keithbob and Bobrayner, and I can come up with a half a dozen other names, but I do wonder who'd want to touch this with a stick.

One more thing and then I'll bow out. I really appreciate Obi's words. Here's the thing with involvement, as loosely defined as Midday does it. Robert Clark Young's article mentions a librarian in Tuscaloosa. It's entirely possible that this librarian is the one who "explained" belly button shots to me; last names weren't always mandatory in the bar I used to frequent. Does that mean I should stay away from the article? By the same token, I have on occasion defended Qworty's edits (SOME of them!); does that mean I should stay away from that article? I have on occasion worked with Obi (see Kristin Beck), and I have on occasion had harsh exchanges with them. Does that mean we two are "involved" with each other in a way that impedes our working together in a neutral manner? No. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have faith in Obiwankenobi's judgement. If he gives you the green light to edit the page as an involved editor, then I have no objections either. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for Middayexpress (and if CorporateM wants to volunteer for a topic ban, so be it). The former's ownership and conspiracy theories are causing real problems. I realise that some of the drama is hard to follow for people stumbling across this thread, but if Middayexpress now even takes the line that uninvolved members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation are unable to edit the article neutrally... that's just absurd. bobrayner (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I did not say that uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members are necessarily unable to edit the article neutrally. I said that "Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM". In other words, I was simply pointing out an association that had not been previously been disclosed. Now that I've agreed with Obiwankenobi's suggestion to voluntarily recuse myself from the article-space and instead focus on civil talk page discourse, would you object if uninvolved WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members were to edit the page alongside the involved editors that Obiwankenobi okays and the uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members? Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think being members of the same wiki project is something that needs to be disclosed. I also don't want to be seen as an approver of who can edit, I was simply stating that for a few ppl I've looked at I see no problem personally with them editing. As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; will do. Middayexpress (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There is support for a topic ban from User:Drmies, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User:Keithbob and User:Obiwankenobi with some saying we should both recuse voluntarily. And even Midday and myself seem to support it, save that Midday has additional conditions. There are no opposes, except that User:DGG has said that I should continue editing. I don't know how these drama boards work - is that enough to get an action on this? CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Note - I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are Obinwankenobi and Dr. Fleischman, and neither supports a topic ban. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. As for me, I support what Obiwankenobi does: voluntary self-recusing from article-space until the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Few people in this thread will (or should) take DrFleischman seriously. They have mistakenly branded CorporateM as a newly-established COI editor; that they have struck some of those comments doesn't take away from the fact that they are under some serious misapprehensions and don't seem to own up to it (in a hole, they keep digging). Their involvement, thus, prevents them from being an acceptably neutral editor in a tendentious BLP. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have had extensive interaction with CorporateM, and they are always VERY VERY cautious and "by the book". Even if they volunteer for it, I would oppose a topic ban for CorporateM. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a !vote on the original proposal? --Lexein (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI - in the context of Midday's canvassing accusations, I have worked with North extensively on articles where I actually do have a COI, but I did not notify him/her of this string. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC

• Strongly support topic ban. Mddayexpress has aso been editing in anti-Somaliland edits in other parts of wikipedia, such as trying to get Somaliland-related categories deleted. he oviously is not impartial in this area. Pass a Method talk 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Pass a Method is a longtime disruptive presence on the Somali-related pages. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I only just finished editing. A clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The categories that he alludes to (which he created) were, incidentally, removed by another editor [71], and one was ultimately deleted as well by an admin [72]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden

• Support: User:Keithbob, User:CorporateM, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User: Pass a Method, User:Drmies,
• Oppose: User:Obiwankenobi

Would an admin like to summarize and close this 11,570 word thread?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: That is incorrect. Pass a Method's vote doesn't count since he Wikihounded me here from another page. The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are User:Obiwankenobi and User:DrFleischman, and neither supports a topic ban, nor obviously do I. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. The actual summary should thus read: Voluntary self-recusing from the page accepted until issue resolved. Editing by WikiProject Cooperation, WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members on page allowed (see 00:09, 24 October 2013 comment above by Obiwankenobi). Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. You're clutching at straws. Of course Pass a Method's vote counts. We don't discount people cause you don't like them. Fleischman should be "counted", but his comments taken with a grain of salt since he...etc. If an admin closes this as "yes, topic ban", just for you, then it's not voluntary. Six vs. three (or one and a half, since really you're out and Fleischman's comments are tainted by inaccuracy) may not be much critical mass, but it may be enough since it's only for one specific article (and its talk page!). Drmies (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, that is fact. Pass a Method followed me yesterday to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I had only literally just finished editing. That is a clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The vote count is thus five to three, hardly a consensus. Per the appropriate notification clause I have also just alerted WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members to this discussion so that they may weigh in for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It's possible a broad topic ban is needed, if MiddayExpress is using Wikipedia to express his personal views against the secession of Somoliland project-wide. I find it unlikely that this editing pattern only exists on this particular BLP and the pattern of editing seems to be related to the article-subject's support of the country's secession. However, that is probably beyond the scope of this string, as is establishing whether there is some hounding going on. In any case, disqualifying participants from voting based on membership at a WikiProject is well.... yah.... There are actually no opposes to the topic ban, only difference in whether I should also voluntarily stay away from the page, whether the topic ban should be voluntary or forced, and if other conditions are applied. There is no need to hammer out these details - an admin should make a bold close and I will respect whatever their decision is, whether it involves my staying away from the article or not. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bergstein should be removed immediately as it does not qualify any of the rules of wikipedia

this is just amazing how this article has managed to stay this long with such poor sources of references, infact there are no references in the public domain for what the article says about this person, only and very negative references exist, wiki article is the only publically available positive article about this highly negative and controversial figure please have multiple administrators decide on this subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bergstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.156.244.230 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This article was gutted today by a user. I've restored the text, but I'm going to (re-)remove any of the unsourced sections of the article. That said, this isn't a matter for administrator intervention; this can be handled at Talk:David Bergstein and/or with the deletion policy. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing should be handled by placing tags on the page.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NO, it should be handled by fixing it. You really need to stop making such uninformed comments that simply confuse people ES&L 22:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP did not sound like they wanted to personally fix it. They were asking for others to fix it.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to assume that's because they don't know how. It only takes 5 seconds of research to find what c.fred found ... and then fix it ES&L 22:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's remember that while Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, it doesn't make up positive ino if the only information on somebody or something in reliable sources is, itself, negative. (Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it is something that seems oft forgotten, so I figured I'd mention it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

<- The IP is registered to Pegasus Blue Star Fund[73] whose owner is apparently in a dispute with David Bergstein (see this for example, or this, a source the IP erased here while labeling the subject as a "failed film producer"). I don't think the IP should be allowed anywhere near the article and they should probably be blocked.Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What is editor is referring to does appear to be correct about the notability and source ability of this subject. I spent last 30 minutes searching for the movies listed, a lot of them on the list cannot be found as movies and some of them do not even have the subject as associated with the movie. Outside of legal disputes there are no other independent notable references available on this subject. I agree this subject does not meet the standards. I will research more and post my comments later what more if any I find. Initial search turned up nothing not a single notable reference.--Nlfestival (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just started editing and this is the first subject I have started working on, so I am working real hard to earn respect and do the right thing, after researching David Bergstein for last 3 hours on every public forum, I only come up with law suits and negative press, there is not a single independent article that shows how David Bergstein has done the facts his article claimed, for instance the article claimed he is a experienced Investment banker with over 3b in deals, there is no public source that can validate that claim, it looks like a PR firm has been hired to clean up the image and a positive article with self-proclaiming facts is the only positive article in the public space. Wiki has not become a platform for advertisement, this article should be deleted immediately, I say this after a very through research. Even the movies claimed in the list, when you click on those movies Wiki have negative news associated to David Bergstein for example click on the film “Nailed” in his list and follow the news reference under “Nailed” --Nlfestival (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a much simpler explanation for your presence that has a probability of being accurate that is orders of magnitude greater than your explanation for your presence, simply on the basis on Occam's razor. But the existence of a Scribd account called nlfestival that has published several documents related to the dispute with Bergstein, including a transcription of a taped conversation, indicates that you have almost certainly been less than forthcoming about your connection to this subject and any potential conflict of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anon IP adding uncited info to many pages on a massive scale, recently

The IP editor 107.215.236.170 has been adding tons of info to a wide variety of music-related pages. Some of this info may be good, some of it clearly isn't, but it's difficult to tell as the info is never, not even once, given a citation of any kind. I tried to revert a bunch of the edits but it's like plugging a finger into a dyke. I don't have the time to do all of them.

Another detail that seems to justify at least a short block of this IP is that they consistently add a large amount of info, then make a small, inconsequential edit, in order to make it slightly more difficult to undo their first, substantive edit.

The IP's talk page already had notes from at least two other editors asking them to stop adding uncited info anonymously (and I added one) but that seems to have had no effect.

Not sure what to do except to post a notice here and recommend a short block; if nothing else, that will at least get the editor's attention. Rockypedia (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the procedure of reporting this form of disruptive editing I do support this action being taken with the above mentioned editor. Maybe it will have an effect on his future edits. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Can any admin, please, take some action on this? The vandalism continues from this one IP address. Rockypedia (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Last edit was 21:47, 20 October, let us know if the IP continues (or let me know). Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's still going on, just not on the same scale as before. Two articles on 22 October, one on 23 October, all on music pages. The first two were just more the uncited personnel listings; the one on 23 October was the vandalism that the IP in question had added many times before. Still no response from that IP. Rockypedia (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the same editor is now editing under IP 115.74.129.208. Same modus operandi and with a soft spot for Air Supply songs. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok

Could some uninvolved admin please go have a look at the article on Jung Myung Seok (a Korean religious leader). This article has been the subject of edit warring and both full and semi-protection for over a year (as can be seen from its revision history and talk page). Most recently — soon after the expiry of a three-month semi-protection — an IP editor deleted a large portion of the article critical of Jung, claiming (despite numerous apparently reliable sources) that the material in dispute violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. In order to steer clear of any possible suggestions that I may be too involved with this article, or with past discussions about its content, to perform administrative functions related thereto, I would like to ask someone else to study the situation and take whatever action (if any) they may feel is appropriate. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the blanking and found the editor's reasoning to fall short of my expectations. Other admins are welcome to examine my judgement. Shii (tock) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This situation is still in need of attention by uninvolved admins. Both Shii and I have edited the article and have participated in content discussions. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The lack of response here is disappointing. The article has again been blanked for incoherent reasons, and I am prepared to revert it again but that will not resolve our problems. Shii (tock) 18:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned this issue on the talk pages for WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Korea, in hopes of finding assistance there. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems at War of the Pacific

This is just to notify strange editing taking place in the article War of the Pacific. For instance, (see [74]) an editor claims material should be removed because it is allegedly only mentioned by authors of one nationality. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. (Indefinite). --Best regards, KS (wat?) 11:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I note, someone brought it up to them on their talk page first (see User talk:MarshalN20#Keysanger is back). Ansh666 11:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I am solely replying with regards to the subject of source removal (which is a problem of Conflict of Interest and vandalism). I believe my short comment is excused by the "vandalism clause" of the WP:TBAN exceptions. However, if I am wrong, I apologize (there was no ill intention from my part) and would not mind if an administrator simply removes/marks-out my comment. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User MarshalN20 can't help doing it. [75], [76], [77], [78]. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And again: [79]. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 09:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion of this issue seems to have gotten drawn into Basalisk's talk page (see [80]). Basalisk is also my current TBAN supervisor. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Erm, those last three diffs are not TBAN violations. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is worse, Marshal's My only recommendation is that you ... and your cry for help @MarshalN20: EMail me the full quotes please. is WP:PROXYING. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 09:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The first one isn't a TBAN violation either. The diff under question is the second. My position is that it is justified by the vandalism clause (and Keysanger's blatant Conflict of Interest). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? The one time I look at noticeboards, you're skirting your topic ban again? I'm curious to know how you think these edits on Talk:War of the Pacific don't violate your topic ban that included all of Latin American history aside from the Falkland Islands. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote immediately above your statement, "The diff under question is the second. My position is that it is justified by the vandalism clause (and Keysanger's blatant Conflict of Interest)."

My two (two-line) talk page comments were written after vandalism by Keysanger ([81] and [82]). My statements solely dealt with the vandalism and nothing more.

Are you going to defend all of that and instead claim I am the one who did wrong?

Anyhow, I am only waiting to hear Basalisk's opinion on the subject. If you want to help, go ahead, but don't let your view of me be the sole reason for your involvement.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Marshal. You're banned from the topic of Latin America history. Do you really want to go down this road again? I'm inclined to bring you to AE (yet again), and I think you know that I'd have legitimate reasoning—WP:BANEX says that vandalism exceptions apply to "obvious" cases, continuing: "The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree." I take that as meaning something like a child replacing the page with an obscene word. It's certainly not a license to enter into a content dispute. You're skirting your ban. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In lieu of AE, I've pinged Sandstein (talk · contribs) and pointed him at this discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping received, thanks, but contrary to popular belief, I am not in fact the living embodiment of the arbitration enforcement process :-) If you think that this requires enforcement action, I recommend that you file a report at WP:AE where this can be examined in more detail by all administrators who process that page. That ensures something resembling due process, and a structured presentation of evidence to facilitate later review of any action.  Sandstein  19:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at first glance, it seems to me that an AE report would be actionable because there appear to have been topic ban violations.  Sandstein  19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Somewhat involved here, I like Marshall, he is actually a good content editor and IMHO his topic ban is unjustified. I also tried to mediate at War of the Pacific a couple of years ago. There is an unhappy history between User:Keysanger and User:MarshalN20 and a certain amount of baiting involved here with User:Keysanger rubbing his nose in it about his topic ban. I would suggest this is dealt with by a simple warning to User:MarshalN20 and a reminder that skirting a topic ban by going off-wiki is not acceptable. I would also suggest User:Keysanger and User:Darkness Shines are reminded of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. ANI should not be abused to settle old scores. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the recommendations of Wee, I have struck out my two sole comments in Talk:War of the Pacific (see [83]). It's also important to point out that I have neither contacted User:Darkness Shines through e-mail nor requested him to be my "proxy". Keysanger (or "KS") is making unfounded personal attacks against both Darkness Shines and myself, and is using this TBAN situation to hide his rampant vandalism in the War of the Pacific article:

1. [84],
2. [85],
3. [86]),

Administrative action is required here not against me, but against this allegedly "experienced" user making unfounded serious accusations and vandalizing an article due to his WP:COI with the topic.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Now Keysanger is resorting WP:ADMINSHOP (see [87], [88], and [89]). This needs to stop.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User account sought for acquisition

I just found this page where someone is looking to purchase an "aged Wikipedia account" for "legitimate purposes". While there's probably not much we can do about it, I think it would still breach our shared account rules. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't want to log in there; how much were they offering? I got a couple cold ones, at a price. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Isn't that like advertising for "experienced prostitute, must be a virgin"? NE Ent 16:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Why do I feel like their isn't actually anything legitimate about what they want?--SKATER ^Speak. 02:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• <sarcasm>Perhaps we should indef all inactive accounts from Bangladesh and blame it on the guy who already placed a bid at that site.</sarcasm> De728631 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Let's take it a step further and indef block all inactive accounts period. :p--SKATER ^Speak. 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:70.186.222.63

• 70.186.222.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Adds persistently false info to articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It is probably a static IP. I tried to warn them; no response. Raamin (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oddly, Geolocate says it is a dynamic IP. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It could be a dynamic IP that is used for a longer period of time by the same customer (as long as the modem isn't disconnected)? Raamin (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki editor violating my edits

I need help. There is a zombie list of movies on wikipedia that states the movies are high budgeted. THEY ARE NOT. I have viewed them and found VERY SEXUAL EXPLICIT as well as VERY LOW BUDGETS. Some college kid Wiki editor has removed all my attempts to warn parents and movie viewers. He even removed the "sexual explicit" and further movie content explanations that followed suit with the original document. How can I report this Editor? I am an adult woman with children and I DID NOT appreciate getting surprised with VERY SEXUAL GRAPHIC movies. This is a right we have to know these are explicit and you are lying saying all the movies are high budget. I can give you a list of the low budget ones. He has threatened me as well. I would like to know how to report this person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Library, I have posted a welcome message on your user talk page. Please review the various links in the message and learn a bit more about Wikipedia and how it functions. With more experience in Wikipedia, you should be able to resolve the concerns you have. After your review, you might comment on the article talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• User:Library777 has now not only made a legal threat,[90], but she is also denying the existing of the WP:NLT policy.[91] I'd like to help the user edit constructively, but NLT is a bright-line that's one of the quickest routes to a block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that they've responded to a legal-threat warning with a "there is no such policy" comment, as well as this POINTy threat, a NLT block has been applied, and the indef will continue until clue improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

    The "POINTy threat" The Bushranger mentions actually contains self-outing. I'm not going to say her name, but really the information given in her threat made it quite clear who she is, perhaps an admin would like to permanently salt that comment so others don't pick up on what I did. This is when I wish contacting people through email (or a messenger type service like yahoo or facebook) would come in handy and be able to communicate to this well-meaning woman who, imho, probably suffers from PTSD and general Conservative-Christian-itis (probably not a recognized disease, but really should be).Camelbinky (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

    • I saw that, but figured it had the same legitimacy as the "Navy SEAL" copypasta. Also, as a conservative Christian myself, I have to say I'm not too happy with the last bit of the above, please don't tar everyone with the crazies who exist in every religion). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinky, don't insinuate that individuals are mentally ill, that is arguably a personal attack. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rolling my eyes.Camelbinky (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You can do that all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's a borderline WP:NPA, definitly un-WP:CIVIL, and disparaging people on the basis of religion is usually described usuing a seven-letter word starting with "B". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As a Jew I think I know something about how Wikipedia treats non-Christians. But hey, as in the real world, best a Jew shut his mouth than actually confront those that outnumber us can punish us for speaking up and claim it had nothing to do with the REAL reason of being "different". BTW- yes, it really is her on that profile, it is a legitimate concern of self-outing, sad you don't care to do anything, and yes, she's identified as a Conservative and a Christian in news reports, and yes, it is not unreasonable to suppose that spending two years in an Iranian prison will give someone PTSD. If someone attacks Wikipedia and our notcensored policy in the way it was attacked, and clearly shows a Conservative political POV it's not a "personal" attack to say that people with that POV are fringe and perhaps using humor to recognize it is a fringe idea was a bit overblown, I apologize. However, it was not a "NPA" violation because I wasn't personally attacking anyone, I was attacking the Conservative Party platform in regards to social policy about sexuality and censorship. If I had said that someone who believed that global warming not true was "insane for believe that global warming does not exist. They should read a book and get cured!" which implies the same thing- I doubt there'd be this indignation. "Attack" Christianity however... OMG! "Someone doesn't like my religion!" Hmmm, where are you all when people attack Jews and claim conspiracy on Wikipedia?Camelbinky (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the point The Bushranger and I are trying to make is that you should have ended your comment after "be able to communicate to this well-meaning woman". Making reference to the mental health of other contributors is just not a good thing to do, even if it's obvious to everyone involved. Our concerns had nothing to do with your faith, which I was 100% unaware of. Please do let me know if you're subjected to personal attacks in the future, and I will not hesitate to take action. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I have no race, creed, or faith knowledge of you (or of anyone else on Wikipedia), and I have no care regarding it - your editing, along with everyone else's, is based strictly on its merits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin required

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

---

Would an uninvolved admin close this discussion HERE? The thread was started October 1st, and it has now sat there for 2 weeks without any additional activity. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Help!!!!!! Is anyone monitoring here? This matter is going stale. Someone help please. Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You might like to list at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure instead. As you can see, there's quite a queue of closure requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Do these edit summaries cross the line of being legal threats?

I am not sure if the edit summaries by this IP 71.202.210.61 (talk · contribs) constitute legal threats?

• "pdated with NPOV, allowing notable non-critical items, to avoid the possibility of a libel suit from Sheldrake, who has called the article "defamatory": http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/post/63184238054/wikipedia-under-threat"
• edit maintains an npov giving weight to critics, cites notable sources like JCS and other notable sources- as it stands, it is a way to avoid libel suits for "defamation": http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/post/63184238054/wikipedia-under-threat
• minor fix - remember, edit maintains an npov giving weight to critics, cites notable sources like JCS - as it stands, it is a way to avoid libel suits for "defamation": http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/post/63184238054/wikipedia-under-threat
• Justification for sources previously given, specific citation from Durr is * suggest possibility of integration (ref name="Durrperspective"/) - remember, we don't want to provide misconceptions, leading to libel problems, as Sheldrake has alluded to

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No. There's no evidence the editor themselves intends to sue. Doesn't validate the edits, of course. NE Ent 23:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the editor never threatened to sue anyone; they're saying that someone else might. However, they are most likely making up whatever Rupert Sheldrake said about the article.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• User is already violating his/her topic ban for the second time, saying "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban": Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#198.189.184.243. vzaak (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• As I see it, whether or not they are techically threats to due in the specific sense, these are essentially attempts to influence editing by bringing up the possibility of legal action. This is not acceptable, DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

24.146.194.69 and 70.208.65.176

These two IPs, recently added faux information to Disney's Sing-Along Songs, Classic Disney: 60 Years of Musical Magic, and Now That's What I Call Disney, The Disney Collection: The Best-Loved Songs from Disney Motion Pictures, Television, and Theme Parks, and The Best Disney Album in the World ...Ever!. Trivialist, reverted them and gave him an only warning. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The first IP is located in Brooklyn. The second one is located in Kansas City. Ergo, they are most likely proxies.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: 72.223.43.181 is on the list of these potential IPs. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

((N.A.O.) Wait? Bambifan101 is at it again!? 98.114.104.129 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the articles in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by Jerry Pepsi

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Jerry_Pepsi (a few days ago).

Edit warring at Piz Gloria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]

Also see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Bond_girls They've had warnings for edit warring from three independent authors already – see also User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi#October_2013.

The crux of this is about categorization related to the James Bond films. They've stripped locations from the general film category, sometimes with (but frequently not) with the edit summary "locations aren't defined by being in a film". They have a point, but there are cases when there is a significant relationship worthy of categorization (see discussion on the ANI link). Likewise "Series characters are not independently notable" (from their attempt to delete yet another category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Airwolf_characters) seems to be implying that such minor topics can never be notable, rather than the more widely held view that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and is required to be (but potentially can be) demonstrated separately.

There is no support for their deletions from other editors (see the ANI link), just concern over their edit-warring and their attitude to other editors. The greatest support they've had so far was mine, and that was pretty sparing. They've made no real attempt to discuss these changes, not gained any support for them, and where reverted they're edit-warring to push their unique viewpoint. Mostly they reject discussion as not being "ON AN APPROPRIATE TALK PAGE", which seems to mean any location other than where other editors are already trying to discuss it. Their ANI response was basically stonewalling. I raised this Bond issue at Category_talk:James_Bond_films#Subcatting_to_James_Bond_locations.3F, but they've ignored that too.

They've also listed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Bond_girls for deletion and prodded at least one individual entry from it, Tatiana Romanova. Clearly an editor who just doesn't like James Bond, or categorization. A look over their entire editing history (it doesn't take long) shows the view that the way to build an encyclopedia is to delete it.

I raised this at WP:AN3, only to be told that this wasn't a breach and that I should raise it at ANI instead. I was also told that my changing the Bond-related categorization at Nene Valley Railway to try and address the very same problem that Jerry is complaining of was itself edit-warring! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly an editor who just doesn't like James Bond, or categorization. I don't understand how you could have formulated an opinion on what I think about either James Bond or categorization, because every time I've asked you to engage in a conversation on any appropriate talk page, including my own or one of several articles, you have decided to ignore those repeated requests in favor of rushing off in search of an administrator to validate you. Had you bothered to initiate a direct conversation with me at any of the many, many places I suggested it, then perhaps you might have a better basis for an opinion.
• I have tried in good faith to open dialogues with you about the specific pages in question and you have declined to engage. From this I could form an assumption that you are a troll who is interested in imposing your will on the project to the discounting of everyone around you, but I have refrained from doing so.
• Had you engaged me in conversation on any of the many occasions in which I asked you to, including on the last change to Piz Gloria which you linked to above then maybe we could have made some progress on this. No, instead you want to pick a fight.
• An appropriate talk page to discuss what categories Piz Gloria should go in would be Talk:Piz Gloria. Have you tried to engage in that conversation there? No, you have not. You did initiate a discussion on Category talk:James Bond films but you did not notify me that you had begin such a discussion and since I do not monitor your activity with the closeness that you seem to monitor mine I had no idea it was occuring. I will gladly reply to you there.
• Consensus has not demonstrably changed against categorizing real-world places based on their appearance in a James Bond film. This consensus has been in place for years. Links to the establishment of that consensus have been posted repeatedly in various venues. WP:ANI is not an appropriate place to check whether consensus on the subject has changed.
• None of the proposals or nominations for deletion that I have made fall outside the established and accepted guidelines for such actions and the fact that the majority of them have been accepted by the Wikipedia community is proof of that. Contrary to your opinion of my Wikipedia philosophy. I believe that it is best served and grown by creating and maintaining articles and categories that are in line with relevant policies and guidelines. No idea what your philosophy on project-building is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've locked Nene Valley Railway and Piz Gloria for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker again

• I moved this from AN. Pass a Method talk 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've raised this issue here before, but the user in question oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days while the thread was open. To sum up, User:Loomspicker is a single-purpose account devoted to pretending Islamophobia doesn't exist by scrubbing the word from Wikipedia, and in the service of this crusade, has engaged in a number of prohibited behaviors. In addition to the evidence detailed here, which includes the introduction of factual inaccuracy, blanking sourced material, and adding scare quotes, he has more recently continued to misrepresent sources ([97] [98] [99]), remove sourced material ([100]), delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted ([101] [102] [103]), and otherwise edit in a disruptive and POV manner. Please deal with this even if the user goes inactive in order to avoid scrutiny. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I take this to ANI instead? Either way, I don't want this to be archived without being addressed simply because the user stopped editing right when the thread opened. That's what happened last time, and obviously he simply resumed the disruptive behavior as soon as it seemed like no one was looking anymore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More of an ANI thing IMO, but since it's here, I'll reply here. (Nowadays apparently you're supposed to use some accursed template to move a thread to ANI, and I can't away with it.) It would be easier to take stock of the situation if you provided a link to where you raised the issue before, Roscelese. If they repeatedly go inactive when they're under scrutiny, and not at other times, then that's significant, but I'd like to see for myself. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

...It's already linked in my first post? But here is the link again. link –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, yes, this sort of thing should be over at WP:ANI, since it's an "incident", so to speak, regarding another user. As far as I (non-admin) know, WP:AN is more for general announcements and requests, while WP:ANI deals more with user behavior. Ansh666 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban rom Islam for Loomspicker. I have been going through this editors contributions and he is clearly anti-Muslim, goes around articles related to Muslims and puts derogotary information about them as well as other unsavoury edits. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I share Roscelese's and Pass a Method's concerns, which I also had after seeing this edit which removed five sources. The fact that these same types of edits are occurring across multiple articles is troubling. I'm not sure if a block is required, but a topic ban should definitely be put on the table for discussion.- MrX 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That edit was about what should be included in the article, not necessarily vandalism. Our talk page discussion on the issue clearly shows that. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism, only that it seems to be part of a pattern of erasing the concept of Islamaphobia from Wikipedia by Loomspicker. - MrX 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very weak support based on review of edits over the past few days. Some seem to be done with the agenda of removing any sense of "racism" from Islamophobia pages and to cast Islam in a bad light. But based on the evidence presented by Roscelese, the user does seem to have an agenda and is barely here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think Loomspicker was explicitly notified of this discussion on their talk page, so I have done so. I would like to hear from them before deciding whether or not to support a topic ban. - MrX 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles.Pass a Method talk 22:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support; user's bias is preventing him from editing productively, on balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I understand the concern of this user having an agenda, and a topic ban is not an extreme solution. One thing I'd want to hear from the user before making a call either way is what their assessment of Wikipedia's relevant rules and norms regarding his/her editing are. Has the user commented anywhere on the accusation that s/he is advocating with a specific agenda in mind (that is, as opposed to building an encyclopedia)? It is possible to have opinionated editors still make valuable edits to issues they care about—as long as they understand how Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• This user seems to only vandalize articles about Islamophobia and makes no constructive edits, so it would seem that a general block would be better than a topic ban if this user continues to engage in this sort of behavior.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker

Of the edits linked above, the material was removed as the sources did not back up the claims, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. And they still haven't been provided. Which policies do my edits not comply with? "Pass a Method" and "Roscelese" respond to my edits with reverts, reports and attacks, instead of wishing to discuss the content itself. For example, Pass reverted my edit on this page which has an on-going discussion, yet doesn't contribute to the discussion. Roscelese reverted me three times on this article yet ignores the message I left on their talk page. I did think maybe it was my approach was wrong, but the block logs suggest this is how they normally respond to edits they disagree with. I did ask for sources or a compromise, but I don't hold out much hope of getting either.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say, this claim - that removing sourced material, adding claims that are verifiably false, otherwise misrepresenting sources, adding scare-quotes, etc. is simply removing unsourced material - is unconvincing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User Locke Cole and uncooperative vandalism/filibustering

Over at The Avengers: Age of Ultron, a debate ensued in regards to whether or not sources stating Jeremy Renner would return. Myself and users TriiipleThreat, Mainstreammark and Favre1fan93 ruled in favour of not, making it 4-1, thus concluding the result. User:Locke Cole absolutely refuses to accept and has been filibustering endlessly. I added a comment at the top of the discussion stating we were finished with the discussion, which he persistently removed, so we may as well throw WP:3RR violation in here too. i believe i did too, but holy hell, i left many comments stating "dont remove other's comments" which he did not acknowledge, even though he knows he isn't allowed to remove others comments. I gave him a warning on his talk, but he simply ignored it and deleted it. His behaviour is uncooperative, childish and plain old obnoxious. How do we deal with this? link to his contributions, which should lead to the aforementioned issues. Rusted AutoParts 03:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You've chosen to ignore, at every turn, site policy regarding the usage of sources and original research. You also choose to ignore editors that support the addition of Jeremy Renner to the cast (your "vote count", which BTW, Wikipedia doesn't use voting, is slightly off, there are at least four editors at the talk page that support adding it to the page, not counting the six editors your group have repeatedly reverted over the past three months). Also, please read WP:TPG, you do not get to unilaterally close a discussion you yourself are involved in. You have no right to do that, and it's uncivil (as is reverting me on my own talk page, which you did today). I seriously can't believe something this trivial is causing this much grief. It's a wiki, if somehow it ends up being wrong, you can always change it later. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few of those six editors didnt engage in the two discussions. And the people against having Renner included were: me, Favre, Mainstream, TriiipleThreat, Tenebrae, Betty Logan. In favour: you, TreCoolGuy, Shii (who has since not engaged further). It then grew into you filibustering when we had no real interest in further discussing as it seemed clear why we weren't adding him: the sources are speculative, and we do not post speculation. We do not. And saying that sources are allowed to contain original research is wrong as they would soon be corrected. You can't make things up. Rusted AutoParts 15:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making things up. You're not understanding site policy. Of course our sources can contain original research, that's what they're for. WP:NOR says we, editors, may not create our own research and present it in articles, we must have sources who have done their own research, to back up the statements we make in articles. As to the !vote count, it's the persistence of ignoring sources that leads to that skewed result. If you have any questions about our policies and guidelines, please, let me help you. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So you've clearly broken 3RR on the talk page removing others comments. Is there any reason you shouldn't be blocked? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Because I was reverting disruption? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think your reverts were covered under any of the exemptions to 3RR. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked Locke Cole for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Talk:The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've declined the editor's peculiar unblock request.

Looking at this from the outside, I do have to agree that Rusted Autoparts was a bit quick to (attempt to) shut down discussion on the talk page - I don't think that was the wisest move. Generally, you want to have a few days (after all, we're not in a rush) for ample discussion, and you want to involve an unbiased mediator (e.g. an admin) if things get heated. Given that none of this was done, I don't blame Locke Cole for getting frustrated. m.o.p 11:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing, we did. From Oct 4-8 we discussed whether or not to add Renner. Result: don't add. Cole decided he didn't like the result and on the 19th added Renner to the article anyway. We removed him and he decided to open another discussion, with the consensus of dont add still intact. He didnt take that too well and began forcing all of us to continue discussing when we were clearly finished. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the early October discussion was charitably no consensus. There was some headway made regarding different ways to state it, so as not to include him in the cast section, but edits I made after the protection expired were promptly reverted completely, instead of edited to reach something we could possibly compromise on. As to the talk page discussion, I was waiting for something more meaningful than "I don't like it", and perhaps for some discussion about policy regarding sources, but it never occurred. So of course I had to re-start the discussion after the reverts on the main page. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was inappropriate for Rusted AutoParts to close the discussion like that, and I suppose a warning is in order for that. I think Locke Cole had other options for dealing with that though (he could have asked an admin to step in, or just written "this discussion is not closed"), which is why I blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I find it a little unequal that Locke gets a block, and Rustyed gets off scot-free. Closing that discussion was wholly inappropriate, and trying to force it closed was even worse. However, because of the "bright line", one party gets slapped, even though they were actually doing the right thing. Rustyed should not be closing any discussions - especially if they think that discussions are actually votes, and not discussions based on policy. Either block'em both for the same length of time, or unblock Locke for time-served - consider that the block did its job and protected further edit-warring. Make sure that discussion is reopened and stays reopened until someone with a clue can evaluate consensus after a couple of weeks ES&L 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Rusted", thank you, not "Rusty" as if you're trying to play me off as some kid. And this whole statement is coming off as an attack against me rather than addressing the conduct Locke engaged in. "Someone with a clue"? How dare you. Do you have anything to add to the topic at hand, or would you prefer continuing attacking me? None of it changes the conduct Cole used in the thread. From filibustering to growing irrational. Rusted AutoParts 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What "filibustering"? You improperly closed a discussion. Period. By your own comments in this thread, you have no business closing any threads, anywhere. Locke has been blocked for his edit-warring, and now it's time to further review your inappropriate actions - which you knew would happen when you filed this report. Your poor behaviour led to someone else's poor behaviour ... let's consider that now. Could you please address the issues I and others raised about you rather than make some bizarre claims about attacks ES&L 15:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, it seems you haven't actually read the discussion and assuming I made Locke become irrational. I altered the closed discussion sentence. As for attacks, you use my name in a degrading manner by calling me "Rusty" and then implied I'm stupid by suggesting "someone with a clue" come. I'll say it again: I'm not the one being reported here. Locke was clearly filibustering and no one's actions should ever drive an editor to lose control like he did. Now stay on topic. I conceded my end of what went down was distasteful and like I said I removed the closed discussion sentence and simply stated it was a continuation of a prior discussion. Locke refused to understand why we weren't adding Renner, so he tried to force his view and filibustered. Rusted AutoParts 15:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion, I agree RAP should not have closed the discussion himself. However, Locke has been arguing the same point since Oct. 4, which has been rejected by overwhelming majority of the opinions (more than four RAP mentioned). I know it's not a vote but at some point we need to move on, editors cannot spend all their time retorting the same argument to someone who refuses to get the point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational review and response, TT - I concur with many of the elements you point out. ES&L 16:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked LC early per preventative, not punitive. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get an uninvolved admin to remove or move Rusted AutoParts "closure" comment at the top of the section? Since my removals are apparently bad. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note to that effect under his comment per your request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually as he has changed his comment I don't think any more action is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

request BLP edit summary blanking

could someone blank this edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlex_Jones&diff=578074754&oldid=577991747] containing commentary about a living person? thanks! see Collect (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the "sources" [104]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done NE Ent 17:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but they have done it again [105] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If necessary, follow the steps at WP:REVDEL. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account: Delphenich

Delphenich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who only adds link to books they have authors and translations that they have done. None of their books or translations are hosted at WP:RS or are academically peer reviewed. While this person most likely is working to improve the encyclopedia, all of their additions are WP:OR. See list of contributions here. Multiple users, including myself, have reverted their edits. Admission that the [translations and books are the user's. I have also notified them of their COI issues. Notified about this thread. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not clear that admins are required yet. The user's last edit was to explain their previous editing. My personal advice is to let the discussion play out, and if the answers you receive are problematic, to come back to ANI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin and Reddit-warring

The Bitcoin‎ article has been the subject of two discussions on Reddit recently that are attracting a lot of attention and activity. Some admin eyes are needed on an ongoing edit war over language in the lead. I have fairly strong views on the topic so I'm not going to get involved. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's are the Reddit threads, for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So far it's only really me and Fleetham clashing somewhat at the moment, and I don't believe Fleetham is from/affiliated with the current Reddit activity. I however, am. I am editing for neutrality only. We're currently discussing our changes in a civilised manner, so I don't think there is any cause for concern at this time. Orbixx (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering what the Reddit community is like, I think it would probably be best to protect this article for the moment.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think our "community" has any room to state such a thing. Arkon (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the | second time on AN/I in the past month that you've unilaterally decided that editors who are active on web sites that you seem to dislike don't deserve WP:AGF. These statements go against the spirit of Wikipedia. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul Jannuzzo and User:Legal Accuracy

Article is BLP that had some out of date information. Brand new WP:SPA account User:Legal Accuracy is making updates, but everything is uncited and completely failing WP:NPOV. As these edits are making accusations about others actions they are also in violation of WP:BLP A few of the more egregious diffs [106] [107]. I have been trying to fix the article up with the more recent info, and include what I can source, but I am now at WP:3RR (although I would argue that I am falling into the BLP exception) for removing the npov versions. I think its pretty obvious that the editor is either Januzzo or someone working on his behalf which raises WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY issues, but I could use some help keeping the article in compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV as well as maybe a more stern warning. User warned here with an additional unsourced (and likely WP:BLP violating edit here] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The user name itself is...questionable, too. (WP:OWB #72 at least, implied WP:NLT even if you take it a certain way...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's slow the truck down here; regardless of whether they are getting paid or not, it's doubtful that they know Wikipedia's rules. You just dropped a partly automated message with links to five different policies. Can we assume that they've read them all? Nope. Let's try explaining the issues to them in plain text. If that doesn't work, by all means go ahead and block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Avengednightmario

Lately, Avengednightmario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing Rand Paul and Political positions of Rand Paul by changing it to state that Paul is in favor of abortion exceptions for rape and incest. I call this vandalism because it's unquestionably false and he's been warned repeatedly. Given that this is a WP:BLP for a prominent politician, I see this as a very serious issue.

Moreover, it's a symptom of a long-term problem with Mario, who tried to make the same changes in March. He has never left an edit comment, much less commented on any talk page, even his own. He ignores all warnings and continues doing what he does. He's not really an editor, just a vandal.

I can't think of a single reason why he shouldn't be blocked for an indefinite period. Can you? MilesMoney (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a recent spat, with a long gap since the previous one involving this contributor at that article in March 2013. There doesn't seem to be any involvement by the contributor prior to that. Yes, it is a BLP and, yes, I know little about the subject matter but on the face of it there seems to be little or no discussion on the article talk page and nothing but bolshie comments on the user's talk page. Even with a general sanctions regime in place, we'd expect a bit more warning and/or explanation for the allegedly infracting contributor. Is this the way that you always deal with such issues? - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While I don't want to jump to an indefinite block right away, I agree that this is a bit ridiculous. I've blocked the user for two weeks.

Sitush - I'd say there was ample warning. This isn't an IP editor - unless that's a shared account, long gaps don't excuse repeated instances of vandalism without acknowledging warnings. m.o.p 23:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

My problem was that no-one seems to have explained much to them. I've just done that but conflicted with your block. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that explanation wasn't quite thorough, but there were multiple notes saying "Hey, you're doing this wrong, please don't do it again". Ignoring those without even asking what people are referring to is the editor's own misstep. m.o.p 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no big deal. The big deal to me was the request for an indef - that was ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - though, if the user continues their behaviour after the block lifts, it's a different story. m.o.p 23:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is a first and final situation. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

mop, thanks for responding. If this block gets them to wake up and smell the coffee, great. If not, I'll be back here again. MilesMoney (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney: more words upfront, fewer blocks later. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I tried words. They didn't work, so it was time for a block. Hopefully the block will get through where words didn't. MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This sort of behavior is precisely why many forums have taken to banning overzealous Ron Paul/Rand Paul supporters ("Paultards" and "Paulbots", as they're called). And they typically don't take kindly to any sort of criticism. This particular example is certainly a step up from the usual behavior (i.e., simply spamming pages with "RON PAUL 2016 END DA FED STATISTS SHEEPLE ITS HAPPENING"), but I don't see any reason why this individual shouldn't be blocked indefinitely regardless, since they are clearly not here to make constructive edits.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

MM, because a couple of edits several months apart is not often indicative of zealotry. Zealots are not usually shy about being forward. They'll get hit hard next time, if there is a next time. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

171.159.64.10 having a month-long vandal-fest

This IP came to my attention due to a non-sense post left on my talk page. I looked through the contribution history for the IP, and started reviewing edits made by it. I found, going back more than a month, that of about three dozen edits, half have been malicious, and most were in article space. A few were reverted by other editors, and I reverted half a dozen more. Today alone, the IP has left garbage messages on three user talk pages.

There are also a bunch of legitimate edits, mostly minor, but a few somewhat moe substantial.

The IP traces back to Bank of America. One of the dits added the name of a non-notable bank of America customer service representative to the Silver Fox disambiguation page.

I do not know what can be done about this. I doubt we want to block a BoA IP, as it represents possibly thousands of employees with no negative history, and possibly a bunch of them being productive editors (as evidenced by the dozen+ positive edits in the history.

Today's user page edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NazariyKaminski&diff=prev&oldid=578171858 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASufidisciple&diff=578171330&oldid=578170690 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dovid&diff=578170631&oldid=578164658

Vandalism, some of it subtle enough to just introduce fake facts that could easily be missed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Alvarado&diff=575536621&oldid=574804490 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_Color&diff=576187939&oldid=575458122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silver_fox&diff=577747735&oldid=576025849 -- this is the BoA CSA edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rock_Hill,_South_Carolina&diff=577762275&oldid=574362388

There are others if you care to look.

- Dovid (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While blocking the IP isn't that big of a deal, we could also pursue an abuse report with the ISP/BoA themselves - this isn't a rangeblock, so I don't imagine this would affect more than one location (unless they share an enterprise network across their entire company). m.o.p 23:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've e-mailed BoA's abuse department to see what they have to say. m.o.p 23:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's a general IP applying to numerous Bank of America employees, how could they know who was doing the abuse?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The customer service representative that they added to silver fox might be them... but it might also be someone that they're trying to frame. Therefore, reporting them to Bank of America could have destructive effects on an innocent person.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've worked for banks, and I've worked in security. I would be entirely surprised if they can't search proxy logs for URLs matching specific page names and &edit -- but they need to be motivated to do it, because those logs can be hairy and expensive to analyze at that level. Dovid (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the only Bank of America IP kicking off lately. If the BoA would like to try to mitigate the damage internally they are welcome to do so alongside our anti-vandalism efforts, but I can't see any reason to allow specific IPs known to be used abusively to vandalize articles and harass those reverting them while they do internal checks. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This. We block even IPs on the "sensitive IP" list when it's necessary, and corporate proxies with who-knows-how-many users behind them, so I don't see that BoA needs any special treatment. Also, I'd be surprised if a strict interpretation of their AUP would allow for Wikipedia editing anyway, so I doubt anyone in management or IT there would care if we block them as needed. —Darkwind (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a 24-hour block for all IPs related to BofA customer service personnel. Maybe then they'll have time to help me with my credit card. Thanks. EEng (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The activity is intermittent, so we need more than 24h. (And yes, I do understand you were tongue-in-cheek.) Dovid (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello I think this IP is owned by a lot of people here at this company .... I did not do any of the edits above? 171.159.64.10 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre

The article No Gun Ri Massacre has been under attack since August by someone, username WeldNeck, intent on sugarcoating and suppressing facts about the culpability of the U.S. military for this mass killing of refugees in 1950.

The article deals with the large-scale killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri early in the Korean War, an event first confirmed by The Associated Press in 1999, reconfirmed and elaborated upon by other news organizations, and then affirmed in investigations by the U.S. and South Korean governments. From the beginning, before the government investigative reports, apologists for the U.S. military, and in particular for the responsible 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, have attacked the messengers, the media, over this blot on the U.S. record. From 2006 to 2011, the Wikipedia article fell under their sway, and in the process turned into a useless, incoherent mess. In 2012, it was brought back into shape as a solid, factual, highly informative and readable WP article. Now with WeldNeck's intervention, particularly with his efforts to suppress facts and revive long-ago discredited attacks on the media, it is slipping into tendentiousness and sloppiness again.

He has made 58 edits since August, with 35 in October alone. It has been very difficult for contributors even to keep up with the many, many ways he has altered the article. Among the most serious and damaging changes have been his adding of nonexistent exculpatory clauses in describing declassified military documents that authorized the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Korea 1950 (clauses such as "as warranted," or "when they were suspected to be North Korean forces"; or "after they were determined to be hostile." Such qualifiers don't appear in the documents, which were reported in media and other reliable sources and can be linked to from the article); his deletion of sentences in the WP article that reflect negatively on the U.S. military or officials, such as his elimination, in two places, of the fact that the U.S. Army, by its own admission, deliberately omitted the highly incriminating "Muccio letter" from its investigative report, and his deletion, as usual without explanation, of an ex-soldier's testimony that troops were told to shoot "everyone from 6 to 60"; deleting a sentence noting the U.S. Army failed to investigate No Gun Ri in 1950, although it knew about the killings then. Many more errors and problems were introduced, including some petty ones, such as his removal from the Further Reading list of a leading scholar of this period of the Korean War because WeldNeck says he doesn't like his political views.

WeldNeck posts at Talk, but almost always in a confrontational, not conciliatory way, dismissing fellow contributors or attacking their integrity, very rarely engaging directly with the substance of an error or overreach that's pointed out to him, but instead reverting to his error-plagued material when others correct it.

WeldNeck’s actions at this page are very reminiscent of those months earlier of user Kauffner, who I understand was eventually banned from WP. I also understand WeldNeck was cleared of being a Kauffner sockpuppet. WeldNeck also was warned about edit warring at another page. Being relatively new to WP, I don't know what action/sanction would be appropriate in this case. But I do know that WeldNeck's aggressiveness and determination to emasculate this WP article bodes ill for the truth and for Wikipedia's mission in this very important historical area.

I first entered this report at the Administrators’ Noticeboard/Edit Warring, but the admin there referred me to this incidents noticeboard, although this clearly involves edit warring, in view of WeldNeck’s rapid-fire reversals of efforts to correct him and his intransigent attitude. Here are the further details from that edit warring noticeboard report:

Version before WeldNeck's edit warring: [108]

Diffs of some of the user's edit warring and reverts:

1. [109] 8 August: Deletes important sentence without explainer (SEE COMMENTS BELOW FOR GENERAL BACKGROUND TO WELDNECK'S DAMAGING EDITS, REVERTS; 58 EDITS SINCE AUGUST)
2. [110] 8 August: Removes witness, illogical reason.
3. [111] 8 August: Removes "massacre" twice, though that's article's title.
4. [112] 9 August: Misrepresents analyst's call for integrity process, attributing it instead to South Koreans.
5. [113] 9 August: Removes key source, North Korean journalist.
6. [114] 19 August: Removes leading scholar from Further Reading because dislikes his views.
7. [115] 7 October: Reverts fixes to Aerial imagery section with dismissive few words.
8. [116] 7 October: Misleads on which investigators found 2nd Battalion responsible.
9. [117] 7 October: Removes entire Korean commission description of events, without discussion, explanation.
10. [118] 9 October: Falsifies description of Navy document re strafing civilians, adding nonexistent exculpatory clause (sugarcoating)
11. [119] 9 October: A dozen highly objectionable changes, including falsifying the description of Army "shoot refugees" documents by adding nonexistent sugarcoating clauses, and deleting without explanation an ex-soldier's testimony that they were told to shoot "everyone from 6 to 60."
12. [120] 9 October: Deletes Pentagon statement that discredited witness wasn't essential to investigation; no explanation, as usual.
13. [121] 10 October: Reverts contributor's removal of extraneous material.
14. [122] 15 October: Again reverts contributor's fixes to his Aerial imagery edits.
15. [123] 15 October: Deletes sentences noting, with citation, AP refutation of attacks on its journalism, and NY Times article supportive of AP.
16. [124] 18 October: Though warned in Talk that "infiltrators" in official Army history doesn't mean enemy disguised as refugees, inserts actions involving infiltrators to build case against refugees.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#No Gun Ri Massacre according to Hanley and the AP "If anyone has any further 'documented' issues to raise (to use WeldNeck's term) -- that is, specific, sensible questions, not the wild fantasies and fabrications of Robert Bateman, a former officer of the very regiment responsible for the killings -- it is appropriate first to do so here on the Talk page, to start a reasoned discussion and take advantage of what knowledgable people know, and not to take us back to the days of nonsensical inserts and overwrites that served no one except those who would like No Gun Ri to simply go away. Even before that, one should review the previous Talk discussions of body count and other matters".

Charles J. Hanley 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

I don’t believe Mr Hanley has chose the right forum, although the additional attention he is bringing upon himself may damage his standing here. Mr Hanley’s primary objection to my contributions is my use of military historian LtCol Robert Bateman. Although Bateman is a well respected US military officer/historian and has published many articles and a well received book about this subject Mr Hanley objects to citing any material to him. This is because Bateman documented so many issues with Mr Hanley’s sources and caused quite headache for the AP team back in the day.

I don’t know if there is a precedent for this, but I question whether or not Mr Hanley should even be editing this article at all given his conflict of interest. While he might deny this COI, Mr Hanley of the AP most certainly does have a conflict of interest with regard to his insistence that we not use Bateman as just a few years ago he was behind a campaign to have Bateman’s book on the subject quashed.

Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."

I have tried to cooperate with Mr Hanley on this article, but he is very difficult to work with. He has a few editors he stays in contact with off Wiki (nothing wrong with that IMO) but it seems like if you don’t share his particular POV and don’t work with him offline to get the story straight, he objects to your contributions on the article.

Mr Hanley’s behavior in general towards me needs to be addressed as well. He continually questions my motives and compares me to a holocaust denier. WeldNeck (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive single-purpose account

Eduard Hellvig is a Romanian politician, and for some time, two single-purpose accounts have been persistently whitewashing his biography, for example by erasing mention of a conflict of interest investigation directed at him: first, Eheditor and now Popescu ionica. While the first was somewhat reasonable, the second has pointedly refused to collaborate. Her only comment, made a month ago, has been this, which starts out: "It seems stupid to me to 'discuss' with unidentified people. I prefer courageous people who display their first and last name. It seems stupid to use English in this typically Romanian situation..." Clearly, we are not dealing with someone willing to discuss relevant issues, and appropriate measures should be considered. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Biruitorul, what measures do you think would be appropriate? What kind of action are you looking for? Are these recent edits or just one month ago? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This user should clearly be indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I've left him/her a message on the his/her talk page explaining that some of their objections are unwarranted. I'm inclined to agree with their request to update the infobox to make it more clear what Hellvig's current political office is (they requested this in Romanian on their talk page). On the other hand, the somewhat underhanded removal of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) controversy is problematic. If my google-fu is finding the right person, Popescu Ionica appears to be someone with political connections to Hellvig, although it could be just a name coincidence... Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, what she complained about was the non-inclusion in the infobox of the fact that Hellvig was, for about nine months, vice president of the Chamber of Deputies. That position is a) shared between four people b) rotates rather frequently c) is appointed by party leaders as opposed to undergoing an individual vote. (The 12-member leadership team is given an up-or-down vote.) According to MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is there in order to "summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". This position doesn't seem that key, although I suppose I could reach a compromise if Popescu ionica would actually engage in discussion. (Of course, it is an important enough post to be mentioned in the body of the article, and I certainly mentioned it there.)

As to who this individual is, yes, it could be her. On the other hand, Popescu is the most common Romanian surname, so maybe not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Alexbrn in Tea tree oil

I'm having trouble with an editor who is repeatedly adding[125][126] badly referenced material to the Tea tree oil article.

For example[127] they're sourcing the paragraph simply to a webpage:

http://www.headlice.org/faq/treatments/alternatives.htm

My position is that that webpage is not a WP:reliable source for Wikipedia, it's not peer-reviewed or published, and the paragraph is unsupported by any other reliable sources. The webpage is not produced by any recognised health authority like NIH, WHO etc. and cannot be relied upon to be accurate. As with any material in Wikipedia, unreferenced material can be removed at any time.

I've tried sorting it out with them on the talk page, but I'm getting no luck; and I'm getting pretty frustrated.

He's removing reliably sourced material from the lead things like: [128] and misquoting the spirit and substance and reliability of sources (he quoted three words out of a 42 page document which was issued by the EU which permitted tea tree oil to be used and then misquoted it to make it seem like tea tree oil use WOULD cause "considerable systemic exposure" whereas the actual source gave a worst case use and then pointed out that they didn't know how much exposure would occur.

Overall, it seems to me that User:Alexbrn is consistently using out of date and non reliable sources to support and advance his position that tea tree oil should not be used.

I don't have a problem with that, if that's what the research says, but having read a lot of it, it doesn't seem to.

I think I would like him to be topic blocked from this article at this stage, other editors seem able to do balanced editing, but I can't get through to him that his editing is deceptive and not in line with Wikipedia's purposes, which is simply to lay out the facts about something rather than opinions.Teapeat (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The page in question at headlice.org is not simply a random webpage. That site is (despite its rather 1998-vintage look) the official site of the National Pediculosis Association, and so a reliable source for the Association's views (as cited by numerous scholarly sources, such as this one we are using). In the last several days I have been one of three editors restoring[129][130] this content against Teapeat's continued deletions of it – so the charge of edit warring is decidedly rum. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's mentioned from a reliable source, this is the first time he's mentioned it including when I bought it up on the talk page. Looking at the website, I still do not consider it to be a reliable source for tea tree oil safety, or for Wikipedia, and note that alexbrn has a history of what may best be described as marginal precis, so even if it's been mentioned by a reliable source that doesn't mean a whole lot, it doesn't mean it's true, the website hasn't been published or peer reviewed, doesn't quote any sources or research.Teapeat (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Teapeat — a simple search would have shown you that the views of National Pediculosis Association are completely integrated into the scholarship around pediculosis. The fact that for half your reverts you confused pediculosis with "pedicurist", that you apparently haven't performed even a cursory check before repeatedly deleting content, and that your seem to be fuelled entirely by an assumption of bad faith, is not helping us advance this article from where it was (essentially a misleading advert for Tea tree oil's miraculous health benefits), into where it needs to be (something where biomedical content is well-sourced per WP:MEDRS). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A five minute perusal of the Talk page will show the folly of this complaint. The National Pediculosis link was noted and explained by Alex on the talk page too. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While 'Pediculosis' sounds official it is simply a website written by people who treat headlice for a living. They have no medical qualifications at all, nor is their website peer reviewed.

To the very best of my knowledge there's never been a single case of liver damage in humans from tea tree oil, not even from people that (very unwisely) drank it. I think if there had been one, it would likely have been written up in a medical journal, but I have never found one or heard of one.

In the meantime this website does not meet the WP:RELIABLE criteria.Teapeat (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, other editors disagree with you and your wholesale deletions of this content (though I think there is scope to prune it - you are convincing me the liver bit should come out for example). The way to solve this content dispute is by reasoned discussion on the talk page, not by repeatedly deleting the content with abrasive edit summaries, starting a splenetic thread on WP:AN/I trying to get an "opposing" editor (me) blocked, or by hurling insults and aspersions around on the Talk page, as you have been doing. This noticeboard is not a forum for solving content disputes. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution is to get a third opinion. Can you take this debate to WP:RSN and see if there is consensus there on using this source? That seems to be the main sticking point here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to take on this issue, which is basically a content dispute, but I have to post my agreement that User:Teapeat is inappropriately confrontational and aggressive at Talk:Tea tree oil. They massively assume bad faith, specifically of Alexbrn, an experienced and as far as I know highly respectable editor. Examples: "This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to contain information, not Alexbrn's personal healthy hints … This is an academic-based encyclopedia. If you can't handle that, I suggest you go away." And you appear to have a complete inability to know what a secondary source is! … Seriously, if you don't even know what a secondary source is, why are you here?" (nice edit summary, too), "Alexbrn is deliberately biasing the lead in particular and the article in general … apparently to suit his own OR and whims". There's more. I don't often suggest such things, but Teapeat might actually benefit from a reading of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Bishonen | talk 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

User:Guido Lonchile and Lucio Dalla

I swore I'd never stick my head into AN/I, but here goes.

There was a bit of a spat over Lucio Dalla; User:Guido Lonchile cannot abide any revision of the page that says he was gay, in spite of reliable sources so describing him. (He's dead, so there's no BLP issue). I've tried various methods of dispute resolution (DRN, not 3O because more than two editors were involved) concluding with an RFC (in which User:Guido Lonchile did not participate, although they had participated earlier on the talk page), which was fairly inconclusive but after which I tried to produce a wording which reflected the discussion rather than my own personal view. ("Outed after his death", in my view, leaves some doubt about something the sources don't actually question).

Bang, revert, no discussion. I took this to "Requests for closure", but was told nothing but to invoke 3RR if he keeps reverting (which seems unhelpful because I could only do so by edit warring myself). Essentially Lonchile's view seems to be based on synthesis; newspapers say Dalla was gay, but he doesn't trust them.

I feel that a good-faith effort to represent the results of the RFC should not be subject to arbitrary reversion by an editor who did not participate in the RFC. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Lucio Dalla was presumed to be homosexual, although he never publicly acknowledged this fact,..."

The "facts", according to the one source (BBC) is that Dalla didn't self-identify as gay but his "companion" spoke at his memorial service. WP:EGRS states:

"Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT). For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."

Unless their is authoritative proof (like an interview with a romantic partner, a well-researched biography, a memoir that is later published, etc.). I think this statement is as about as authoritative as the article can be without additional sources to verify his orientation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's mistaken for several reasons. Firstly, "presumed to be homosexual" is precisely what sources don't say; there is no source indicating he was so presumed during his life. As far as the sources say, his closeting seems to have been a secret between him, his boyfriend, and his confessor.

Secondly, WP:EGRS deals with categories. The disputed edit does not add or remove categories from the article. (Of course, you might reasonably contend that it is a good guideline to other editing).

Thirdly, the Malta Times article is quite unequivocal on the subject (which, ahem, synthesis, but is very telling given its undercurrent of homophobia). http://www.lastampa.it/2012/03/06/spettacoli/dalla-confesso-non-mi-sento-omosessuale-Zmn5sHg5uUz1hJpzkyvpqI/pagina.html is another article which, if I'm not very much mistaken, does not dispute the fact for an instant. Neither does http://societa.panorama.it/Lucio-Dalla-gay-ma-quale-ipocrisia-Era-solo-una-persona-riservata-parola-di-Alfonso-Signorini. (ETA: and http://bologna.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/03/05/news/dalla_dom_chessa-30986032/ ). I think it is quite clear that there is a "verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate". I haven't added these to the article because an edit I made reflecting what they say would simply be reverted without discussion, and...

Fourthly, I'm not trying to revisit the content dispute; that's not what AN/I is for. I'm trying to say that I think it is unreasonable for an editor who ignored the RFC discussion to revert a good-faith attempt to reflect it. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So what do I do? I can't get anywhere with the content dispute mechanisms because I just get reverted with no discussion. And apparently I can't get anywhere here, either. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Cau7ion POV editing and insults

User:Cau7ion is engaged in POV editing of White American and insults to me. He does not understand or care about the rules of Wikipedia that I furnished to him:WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE, WP:CON. He just repeats that he could provide sources, but does not do so. The changes he makes to this cited article are based, as he says, on what he believes to be right regarding his questions on the 'legitimate whiteness' of White Hispanic Americans and other such assertions; he does not provide reference citations for the content changes he makes in the article. In an edit summary reverting his edits, I pointed out his changes were 'made without a discussion resulting in an agreement on these changes'; his response in an edit summary was 'that has to be the most idiotic reason for editing my changes'. In the Talk:White American where I pointed out the rules WP editors must follow, his response started out with 'you must be an illiterate fool son'. Perhaps an administrator can help here as I am uninterested such dialog; my only interest is in content based on reliable cited sources. Hmains (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no biased editing for White Americans.

I fixed grammatical errors and used the non-Hispanic white population as a reference (63.7%, etc) and that's an official number from the Census regarding the non-Hispanic white population and actual white population used by most sources and even the census.

I did not delete the White Hispanic reference from the White Americans article but did not use their percentage and number for the overall white population because they get a separate category from Europeans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans for their number and percentage. There is subliminal connotations about their legitimate whiteness regarding their ancestry -- hence the reason they get a separate category on the census.

See: social definition on the White Americans article.

Using the non-Hispanic white population on the page is not POV editing, but using an actual percentage reported by the census and used by most sources.

I already elaborated on my edits in the talk section on the White Americans page regarding Hispanics.

This also appears to come off as more of a content dispute than a legitimate problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cau7ion (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

- Cau7ion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

this editor Cau7ion does not seem to care about wikipedia policy, on other pages the POV pushing and edit warring are also going on.learn to use talk page and wait for that process. action must be taken if he/she does not stop.--Inayity (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that some diffs be provided to show this behaviour. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol at Inayity talking about biased editing when his information on the Musa_I_of_Mali page isn't even from a legitimate source (deemed that by another editor by the way) and in the talk page I have already provided a source that shows how his information is false.

See: legacy.

He put up information from an illegitimate source, made up information that isn't even in the improper source too, and says I don't care about Wikipedia policy?

Hilarity at its finest.

As for Hmains, he was mad for me disagreeing with his changes on the White Americans page in a feisty-esque way.

I already provided sources regarding the non-Hispanic white population too.

How much more do you want me to provide?

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/white-not-hispanic-population-percentage#map

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2012/11/13/finding-diversity-in-america/

There is two more, just for you.

Someone who isn't registered edited the page earlier today, so I had to revert it back.

Apparently me pointing out false information on pages, changing this info to correct information, and rectifying grammar on these pages is violating Wikipedia's decree?

Lol, sure...

- Cau7ion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've certainly been vexed by User:Cau7ion re Musa I of Mali, where I have actually checked the older print sources for the article myself and they manifestly have not. I do rather catch a whiff of an odious POV when someone starts to talk about "legitimate Whiteness"; all User:Cau7ion's significant edits seem to be race-related. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You do realize, Cau7ion, that a user doesn't need to be registered to edit Wikipedia? Being an IP account isn't grounds for a revert, reversions should be based on the content of an edit.

As for your conception of "legitimate whiteness", if you continue down that road, I see more visits to AN/I and maybe an RfC/U in your future. The U.S. census defines Hispanic heritage as an ethnicity, not a race so one can define oneself as a white Hispanic, a black Hispanic or a Native American Hispanic. Being Hispanic in itself doesn't negate someone's whiteness. Racial categories are socially constructed and have fuzzy boundaries...no Editor should put themselves in the position of judging who is "in" and who is "out", who is legitimate or authentic and who is not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to put a separate category for White Hispanic and non-White Hispanic under the total population percentage and number, then fine, I already said go ahead.

My other edits on the White American page was minor and regarding grammar mostly and a few other mishaps.

Once again, 63.7% was not a false number, as for me asserting 50% of Hispanics in America aren't white and providing a source to prove that they are of mixed ancestry generally, how is that false?

I've already had editors state that most of them are of mixed ancestry like I said and I didn't remove the White Hispanic reference from the article.

If you really think 50% of Hispanics in America are white, then sorry, your vision must be bad.

I mean under the White Hispanic page it has a picture of Salma Hayek, smh, really?

Whatever, I don't think anything else needs to be said, except if someone wants to put the White Hispanic number and percentage under the total population number and in the paragraph, just keep the non-White Hispanic number and percentage there too.

I would also appreciate it if we're gonna put one for whites, then blacks and Asians need one too, only to make it fair.

- Cau7ion (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Cau7ion is now simply lying about my edits on Talk:Musa I of Mali. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm dearchiving this as suggested above since it still seems to be a live issue. User:Cau7ion is now grinding their axe at Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans, where this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=578265427&oldid=578261280 (and subsequent reverts) is so keen to expunge the Portugese that it simply misquotes the US government references in the lead. Surely this is not appropriate?

Also, sigh, yes, twice in one afternoon. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is simply a content dispute for the reasons elucidated earlier with insufficient diffs, a brief selection of which: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=573593935 (insulting edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_American&diff=prev&oldid=576814358 (ditto) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMusa_I_of_Mali&action=historysubmit&diff=577513532&oldid=577322885 (simple untruth about what I wrote, then describing false version as "semi-coherent"). They also persistently misuse the minor edit facility. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I already put a citation showing how the Portuguese are not Hispanic and who is.

"Government references"

It was one government reference and a government reference for one involving automobile-esque government issues -- here is one from the census.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

" Definition of Hispanic or Latino Origin Used in the 2010 Census “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"

Notice how it does not include Portuguese in there, at all.

The Portuguese are not "Spanish in culture or origin" so therefore they aren't Hispanic or Latino.

I added a citation on the page showing how my edit is justified and there is other citations besides my recent addition showing how the Portuguese aren't Hispanic/Latino (like the one I just quoted that has been on the page) so my edit is clearly justified.

Two edits is not three by the way, you should know the rule.

Addendum: Pinkbeast has reverted my edits on various pages and complained about them on here multiple times despite the fact that I follow WP's decree and show explicitly how my edits are justified.

He seems to have some odd dislike for me.

- Cau7ion (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Caution, please restrain the urge to make one-sentence paragraphs. Write continuous prose. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I like to indent a lot. - Cau7ion (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Except you're not indenting at all, and that makes the conversation absolutely impossible to follow. Please properly indent/thread your replies. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Two references (at least), actually; in both cases direct quotes from those references were altered to remove the word "Portugese", while still purporting to be direct quotes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=578281865&oldid=578281733 (marked as minor edit) removes the word from references http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/49cfr26.htm and http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/sops/8005/sop8005-3.pdf - User:Cau7ion then removes one of those altogether and replaces it with a different reference in an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=578283056&oldid=578281865 where the edit summary claims just to be adding a citation.

I freely admit I do have an instinctive dislike for people who bang on about who is and isn't "legitimately white". You've got me there. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the word "Portuguese" and other sections in those edits because I thought they were apart of the visible article (not quotations from a source) and it was a mistake. I added a citation to show you the definition of Hispanic (which it did show how Portuguese aren't Hispanic) and thanks for the concession on having an "instinctive dislike" for me based on an old post.

I also elaborated on how the Portuguese aren't Hispanic/Latino here on my post with the bolded words and it's quite clear they aren't and how the article even basically states the same things prior to my edits, shows how I was correct.

Why was this thread regarding me even opened again?

Ahh, because I accidentally took words out from a part of the article that I didn't see was a quote. - Cau7ion (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I reopened it primarily to provide diffs for the occasions when you have referred to other editors in terms such as "retard", "idiotic", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_American&action=historysubmit&diff=576968598&oldid=576949615 "illiterate fool" (and some more stuff about who's "legitimately" white in there), "semi-coherent" (based on a misquote of what was actually written), etc. and to observe that you continue to make controversial edits on race-related articles without seeking consensus. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"I reopened it primarily to provide diffs for the occasions when you have referred to other editors in terms such as "retard", "idiotic""

Really?

Here's what you said in your original post opening this:

I'm dearchiving this as suggested above since it still seems to be a live issue. User:Cau7ion is now grinding their axe at Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans, where this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=578265427&oldid=578261280 (and subsequent reverts) is so keen to expunge the Portugese that it simply misquotes the US government references in the lead. Surely this is not appropriate?

It doesn't mention anything about talking about providing diffs for older edits and in that diff the term "retard" and "idiotic" are nowhere to be found. I said "connotation about their legitimate whiteness" not "legitimately" (you're misquoting me) and was referring to the government giving them a separate category (which they do) but anyways that was back then.

You're digressing from your original point of reopening this now and ignoring my points about the article we were discussing.

I apologized for my actions as they were a mistake of removing a quote that was a part of a source, didn't know it was, like I said earlier.

I really don't see what else needs to be said here. - Cau7ion (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Cau7ion: Please properly format your replies in this thread. As you have currently written them, your comments cannot be followed, as the chain conversation is impossible to be picked out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this editor needs a mentor if they hope to edit here. Looking at there contributions we have to face the fact almost ever namespace edit has been reverted on many different topics. Do we call into question there capabilities or motives. Got to be frustrating for anyone that almost every major edit is reverted and contested on the talk pages. Some simple wiki training I believe is in order here. -- Moxy (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in these latest disputes, but this user's MO appears to be identical to Y26Z3. For a summary of this user's many sockpuppetry incidents, please see [131].Goodsdrew (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here: [132]. I invite interested parties to comment there about this user's behavior.Goodsdrew (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:50.73.181.181 WP:ENGVAR at Schrader valve

Page: Schrader valve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.73.181.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated breaches of WP:ENGVAR over the last month – seven at current count. Not rapid enough to breach brightline 3RR, but it's clearly a policy they're just not interested in observing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well since it's an American invention and the article is about an American product, I think the IP is actually correct. The article should be in US English. Also the US spelling has been in use in the article since the second edit, and it was only recently that someone changed it to British English. It was only in May that someone decided to fully impose a UK spelling incorrectly across the article. So the IP has the right of it in my mind, the other editors, including yourself, who are reverting it are the ones who are violating WP:ENGVAR. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the above; the correct WP:ENGVAR is American spelling, and the article was mostly correct for years before it was changed in contradiction of ENGVAR in May. Also, Andy, did you discuss this with the IP or at WP:DRN before bringing this to ANI? I can't find where you did. Suggest this be closed as without merit before it WP:BOOMERANGs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Shrader valves? Really??? An ENGVAR tussle over the article on Shrader valves???? Is there no area of human endeavor (or endeavour) sufficiently dull that it can escape becoming a battleground for these absurd ego trips? EEng (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, there's been much worse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We will fight them on the Shrader valves--we will fight them on the Presta valves--we will fight them on the tires and the tyres and the trunk (automobile)s and the boot (motorcar)s and the lifts and the mobiles... EEng (talk)

We'll even spell Schrader correctly.... NebY (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wanna fight about it? EEng (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair suck of the sauce bottle, don't come the raw prawn, ya flamin' drongos! The boss cockys' noticeboard for stoushes is flat out like a lizard drinking with chiaking and furphies, let alone a gumnut's freckle of blue like this. Some flash cove has already done the hard yakka and pickled this wombat, so lets shut the shearing shed gate on this jumbuck and cop it sweet.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Aaaah! Your mother wears army boots! EEng (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by Embram

Standard edit war

• Bold edit
• 19:59, 22 October 2013‎ First restore after being reverted

• 20:18, 22 October 2013‎ EditWar & ARBCC informal warning, in which I pointed out WP:EW, WP:ARBCC, and WP:BRD

• 20:21, 22 October 2013‎ Second restore after being reverted 2
• 20:32, 22 October 2013‎ Third restore after being reverted

• 20:34, 22 October 2013‎ Another ARBCC informal warning (by different editor)

• 20:48, 22 October 2013‎ User blithely states "Neither ... of you (have) identified a specific Wikipedia prohibition that I have supposedly violated."

No discussion has been started on the talk page, though I am about to do that myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PS User notified here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Late supplement, after some discussion happened Sorry, I forgot to specify that I am asking for the formal ARBCC warning and then logging of the warning as described in this section of that ruling. The mechanism for asking for this relief has never been clearly defined, though there are some discussions underway. I used to do it myself, but some admin (I forget who) eventually recommended coming here to solicit an uninvolved admin instead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't think you can call it edit warring when the editor is unaware of the general sanctions. I hope this is not simply an attempt to silence the user. Arzel (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

False. The rule is not BOLD-REVERT-REREVERT, but BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS. And in any case, there were two RE-REVERTS after I first posted to his talk page about BRD and EDITWAR and ARBCC... as you can plainly see in the above chronology. He simply ignored those after having ACTUAL NOTICE of them. Thats an EW in anybody's book. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the administrative action that you are seeking by posting to this noticeboard? Typically enforcement of Arbitration remedies goes through WP:AE, while edit warring is reported through WP:ANEW. Is there something more complex going on here than that? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, my crime was trying to abide by the Wikipedia "Neutral point of view" dictate which Wikipedia states "is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it" (See WP:NOV) by merely identifying AGW as a theory that holds that global warming is caused by human activity, and linking to an other Wikipedia page that discusses the controversy. I wasn't even disagreeing with them, but that was apparently enough to bring down the wrath of the "there is no controversy; it is settled science" group. As someone on my talk page commented, "Going against AGW is a quick path to getting yourself banned from WP forever. The AGW crowd does not play nice, so I suggest you stop your tactic immediately and stick within the constraints that they have set forth."

So much for Wikipedia impartiality, apparently. - Embram (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Also from WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."

My accusers are pursuing sanctions against me because I made one small step to "explain the sides" – and in this case, not even by identifying the other side, let alone making their argument, or even saying what it is, but merely by pointing to another Wikipedia page that talks about it. - Embram (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Correct venue is WP:ANEW, but regardless, can someone block the account for edit warring in clearly problematic content? It should be fairly obvious that inserting denialism into the lead of the climate change is going to be reverted for the POV pushing that it is. It is akin to a creationist pushing the "controversy" on evolution in the lead of that article, or "smoking causes cancer" denialists on the smoking article. One would hope that a reputable encyclopedia would have zero tolerance for blatant POV-pushing and edit warring of this sort, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there's your breathtaking Orwellian contention that even mentioning that there is a debate on a subject is an example of POV. That's absurd. But beyond that, tell me what exactly I put on the "climate change" page (the subject of this accusation) that you consider "denialism"? - Embram (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's my entire addition that was reverted three times by others. Where's the "denialism" in it?

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory holds that these human-induced effects are the main cause of current global warming; thus "climate change" is often used in relation to the current debate on human-specific impacts on climate.

- Embram (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is as about as much debate amongst scientists about global warming as there is about evolution, that smoking causes cancer etc etc. Trying to make it look like there is a debate is a classic Teach the Controversy pitch. You added clearly problematic content to the lead, and then edit warred to keep it in. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I just supplemented my opening post by specifying the relief I seek and why I ask here. See bolded section in OP above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, guys, this doesn't seem like a sanctionable event to me. After all the back and forth, the resulting change to the lead of the article does seem like an improvement (to me, at any rate).CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(involved) Basically, what TenOfAllTrades said. Nothing actionable yet for ANI, and this isn't the place to hash out a content dispute as Embram seems to think. I also think that formal sanctions warnings are a bit of unnecessary bureaucracy, so long as the potentially sanctionable editor has been made aware of their existence. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand about WP:BRD. I was doing reverting, and so were the other guys, and none of us discussed on the talk page (but only in the edit summaries) until after the incident report was filed. The reason I did not fully understand the WP:BRD rules was that in the five years I've been trying to help out here by occasional editing, this is the first time I attempted to edit in a climate change topic, so I'd never faced this kind of organized tagteam content-suppression before. I was acting in good faith, so I assumed they were. I kept thinking they would understand that I wasn't trying to contradict them, just to facilitate understanding by providing links to other Wikipedia pages that expanded on aspects of the topic. My mistake. Now I know better. From now on I'll follow the BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle rules. - Embram (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's nice. I hope you will, Embram, and please take some account of WP:UNDUE also. Funnily enough, those passive-aggressive attacks under cover of meekness don't fill me with confidence. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

ColonelHenry GA review ownership issues and personal attacks

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

---

Hello. Could someone please take a look at Talk:Pedra da Gávea/GA1#Comments by others and look at the behavior of ColonelHenry. It was brought to my attention by this blog post by AfadsBad that the article Pedra da Gávea is little more than word soup, with numerous factual errors. I raised this as a matter of urgency at Talk:Pedra da Gávea/GA1, where ColonelHenry has "assessed" the article as "good". ColonelHenry responded by making personal attacks at AfadsBad, apparently based on AfadsBad having disagreed with another (IMO, poor quality) review made by him at Talk:Parsnip/GA1, and, well, you can see the way that he's been talking to me. I think that it's outrageous. However, as I've now had some involvement with the article content - I removed its GA status as an emergency measure, but was immediately reverted by him* - I'm obviously not at liberty to take any action over his behavior. I would appreciate a second opinion. Thanks. — Scott • talk 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

* I've not had any prior experience with these processes. If that's the wrong procedure, it can be discussed elsewhere, it's not the point of this post.

• Response: Apparently, Scott Martin decided to plow his comments after the GA review was over, stating that a disaffected angry former editor (AfadsBad) decided to post a blog rant criticizing the article's accuracy. I stated that the blog rant isn't credible, IMO, stating that the former editor's behavior was troll-like and petulant, and that I wouldn't pay attention to it. Apparently, AfadsBad has some bad feelings over his Wikipedia experience that he has taken to other areas by starting a blog criticizing science coverage on Wikipedia. Scott Martin decided next to post an ultimatum to me on the talk page for the article. I responded derisively and told him nothing was stopping him and pointing to the similar behavior in his ultimatum. If Scott Martin is angry that I responded to his petulance by calling him petulant, well his behavior was "irritable, unreasonable bad temper over something unimportant" so the word is apt. I call a spade a spade. While I don't intend to be meanspirited, I also don't intend to sugarcoat. Scott Martin removed the GA from the talk page of the article, I reverted stating in the edit summary that the proper process is WP:GAR, after which I contacted him on his talk page to direct him to WP:GAR, recommended a community reassessment, and a few notes about bringing sources if he disagrees with the content. During my review, I found the sources provided by the nominator to address the content issues at the GA review sufficed and support the statements made in the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the post above is an adequate demonstration of the issues here. — Scott • talk 21:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Note: It's late here. I'm going offline until tomorrow.

I can't believe I'm "helping." I have shared the Pedra da Gávea "good article" with a few geologist friends of mine and a good laugh was had by all. Your problem is you have people assessing the quality of articles in geology (and most of the other sciences) that don't have a bright high school sophomore's understanding of the subject. They are completely ignorant. You have reduced the whole notion of "quality" down to whether objective, but useless and badly constructed, internal rules are met. Rather than, you know, an assessment against reality. I love it.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as demonstrated by recent discussions that Josh has had, most Wikipedians are uninterested and overtly hostile to having any sort of expert/qualified reviews. It is hardly surprising that most articles are rather poor and that reviews are more about rule following and style over substance. just to note; I've no problem with non-expert editing for the most part since I have no particular expertise in most articles I edit (who could edit here on the same topic as their day job and stay sane?), rather I think the expert review is how we go to the top notch while letting the non-experts (us) do a lot of the leg work. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• IRWolfie - I've done close to 200 GA reviews, about 30 under this account. I've failed about 35% of the articles I've reviewed. I check sources. It's something I did years ago under an older account and only started to rekindle that involvement this past year. In all of those, I've only found a half-dozen (mostly recently) where someone interfered with the review (in the case of Afadsbad, he announced he intended to disrupt) and I had to fail the Parsnip one on advice of other editors. Sure, some people don't like their reviews failed and told to try again, but in the few science GA reviews (two botany, now this one), I notice scientists tend to be incredibly territorial, and the battles among them petty and nasty (battles in academia are often petty because they're essentially meaningless), and it seems that they are the ones I've run into problems with. I have never encountered such petulant resistance until the last few weeks in almost a decade of editing on Wikipedia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I check sources. I am now in the process of examining the Pedra da Gávea article. From what I've seen so far - and I'm only working on the start of the article - I am unconvinced by that statement. Given that you allowed the inclusion of a statement about a non-existent geographical feature, your source checking skills are questionable at best. Given that you missed a basic spelling error and, astonishingly, a mangled editing mistake monstrosity, your abilities as a proofreader are clearly also substandard. And given the extended pattern of your incivility and patronizing and dismissive attitude towards other editors that is on evidence in this discussion, your ability to participate in teamwork is far below even the minimum standard that I would expect. In short, I question your suitability to be involved with the article review process at all. — Scott • talk 11:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• To my misfortune, my first GA review was handled by Henry and I still remember the amount of drama I had to deal with because of it. He gave a rather poor failing rationale where he attempted to force his own style onto the article and gave a lot of vague non-constructive criticism, then snapped when I politely asked for specifics. After multiple GA regulars agreed that it was a bad review and one suggested I renominate the page, I went ahead and did so only for him to complain at WQA that the renomination was uncivil. In the subsequent review it was much more calm and easygoing, with the article getting passed without much difficulty. There was no information gap as it was not a science article, it was just that he did not gracefully handle even the slightest questioning of his arguments.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Devil's Advocate, I don't remember the review you mention. Which article? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• It was this review.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• And at that time, it was a badly written, badly organized article. I stated it, that it was quick-fail worthy but you didn't like that I was failing it, so you fought back (occasionally, that happens--no one likes seeing their pet projects criticized). I always suspected that you got a meatpuppet to pass it for you. However, that was 15 months ago. The issue is dead and moot. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, well, I will admit that I am not real good at keeping up with the gossip and I may have missed a scandal or two. But whence the suggestion that SilkTork could be The Devil's Advocate's meat? Shouldn't someone take a deep breath before saying stuff like that? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I have to agree that the suggestion that it deserves GA status seems questionable. It is disjointed, and I don't think that "word soup" is an unfair characterisation. An elementary spelling error, "Nordick runes", seems to have passed unnoticed. I would suggest that a fresh review by an uninvolved contributor familiar with the review process would be for the best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? I think WP:GAR is the correct venue for these concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I proposed GAR to Scott Martin...twice. He took it here, pissed off that I called him "petulant", then deleted my suggestion from his talk page. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This could hardly be less accurate. I raised my severe concerns with the assessment on its talk page. ColonelHenry replied with a barrage of rude comments about AfadsBad. I told him to stop making personal attacks and that I planned to downgrade the article. He replied with rude comments aimed at me. His suggestion about GAR came on my talk page after he had reverted my downgrade (the edit summary for which also mentioned GAR) and after I had posted here. And I did not delete anything; I moved the suggestion to the assessment talk page, as he is well aware. Notice the battleground mentality as well; anyone that disagrees with ColonelHenry is "pissed off" or "petulant". — Scott • talk 11:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark makes a good point. Discussion about the GA review/status of the article should focus on the WP:GAR page.

Nonetheless, what causes concern here is ColonelHenry's inappropriate interactions with other editors. There is just too much unnecessary rudeness and insult in his messages. I think everyone can respect Henry's standard of "call[ing] a spade a spade", but he really needs to watch his wording.

No one voluntarily comes to Wikipedia to be berated, and it certainly does not help with editor retention.

Being rude does not make you look professional or serious; in fact, it causes the opposite effect.

Everyone appreciates the GA review work you do. There is no need to be rude.

So, please, ColonelHenry, just be cool.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be more clear, see [133]. There is absolutely no need for that kind of behavior.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: MarshalN20 and I had run in on the GA for Talk:Estadio Chile (poem)/GA1 which I failed, in which he offered an unsolicited opinion to augment the position of a poem that already was a copyvio issue. This was another incident when the ever irritable AfadsBad decided to stalk my contributions to insert himself and his ill-will.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Henry, I made a mistake with "the copyvio issue". You could have simply stated that, but instead responded with "this is my review (I signed up for it), not yours. If I need an external second opinion, I'll ask for it. But I didn't ask for one". All we request is that you please moderate your language. We are your colleagues, nothing less and nothing more, and all should display mutual respect. If you disagree with someone or something, voice it, but don't insult. Call the spade a spade, if you wish, but don't call it a "worthless old spade". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Said the man who deleted my comments from an FAC twice because of his dispute with me.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Henry, we have never had a "dispute". You made another inappropriate comment on the FAC of the Peru national football team ([134]), and I reverted it. If, as The Devil's Advocate states, you have been behaving the same way for over a year, there is something seriously wrong going on here. We are simply asking that you please stop being rude. Why is this such a problem?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree the problem and why we are here is a lack of communication skills. The GA review is secondary, but still important. Attacking people in ever post is simply not a good way to move any position forward and makes the editor in-question look immature. -- Moxy (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As I noted, this is not a new issue as my own experience with him was over a year ago. That he is still acting this way is not a good thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. My interaction here with ColonelHenry shows the exact same behavior. Not collaborative, rude, snide, and liberal with personal attacks (of which I no doubt am about to be accused of).--v/r - TP 01:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, if most of you don't like me...IDGAF. Personally, I add good content to this site--as reflected in the articles on which I'm most of proud of working. Quite frankly, I don't care about the feelings of oversensitive editors who can't bear to hear people talking back to them when they waltz in trying to impose the Eric Cartmanesque "respect my authority" schtick. If you want me to stop reviewing GAs, fine because you don't agree with my reviewing style (which only about a half dozen of my reviews have ever been an issue). If you want me to go away because I'm not a nice, puppy-dogs-and-ice-cream, warm and fuzzy personality, well, that ain't my problem. Sometimes I'm rude, who cares. Most of the people on Wikipedia are maladjusted basement dwellers who relish the chance to flame someone. Funny that this entire controversy seems to have started from a few editors--Scott Martin, AfadsBad, and others--in that cabal that hangs out at Wikipediocracy (including one editor posting there who actually has thanked me for some of my bone-headed bellicosity toward Mr. Maartin). If you don't like how I contribute, IDGAF. I'll stick to writing articles and forget all the other community bullshit like GA reviews. I don't care anymore. And if your feelings are hurt by the result of my honesty, I don't care then either. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No one's saying you have to massage anyone's ego, but when someone says "I must respectfully disagree with you on that point" and your response is essentially "Yeah, well fuck you jackass!" then it tends to make working with you a tad difficult.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I remember seeing that "this is my GA review, get the fuck out", and was a bit dumbfounded by that attitude. Fuck this, fuck that, I don't care, fuck you, fuck those editors, who cares, fuck cares, fuck feelings, fuck your feelings--sure. Sigh. Yeah, Colonel, I don't get it, but you probably don't give a fuck about that either. Then again, those fucking editors are the same editors who wrote up Wikipedia and gave you Chicken fried bacon--yes, you're welcome. Will you please just tone it down? Your work is appreciated, but the snark is not. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This admin would like to remind ColonelHenry that another violation of NPA - like, but not limited to, "Most of the people on Wikipedia are maladjusted basement dwellers" - will lead to a block. m.o.p 03:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't even have a basement. Besides, that comment should come with a "globalise" tag--it's an Americanism, and I can smell the wood paneling, the wet laundry, and the water heater from here (outside, in the yard, not in the basement). Drmies (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. I think something more than 50% of the regulars are basement-dwelling misfits, and I don't consider the colonel's observation to be a personal attack. On anyone. Just a statement with some likelihood of truth. (We should commission a survey.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonel, per Drmies, your work here is truly appreciated but being kind and patient with sometimes irritable colleagues is a very important part of the tool set when you assume the role of judging the fitness of their creative efforts here. Our feelings really matter: just as yours obviously do. I've mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Colonel Henry at ANI. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from Gerda: I have no time to dig into this specific review, but can testify that one of my GA reviews (all pleasant, even the one of eight that failed) was recently performed by ColonelHenry on the unusual subject Talk:Mass in B minor structure, with good questions and helpful comments improving the article (which is up for peer review, btw). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Henry, I'd second Anthony's point above. I know you have a shiny barnstar on your page just this week from me for pitching in with the backlog, but someone pointed out your quickfail at Pitfour estate with no examples or actionable recommendations, and it's been troubling me. The nominator was understandably frustrated enough with this review that she was considering giving up on the GA project for a while. It was a bit frustrating to me, too, to see that you quickfailed it for copyediting reasons, because after copyediting both this one and an article of yours this weekend, I can say that the problems in her nomination are by far the less severe. I don't intend to spite-fail your nomination or anything, but I would ask that if you keep reviewing, you bring the same patience to others' reviews that you'd ask for in your own. Like Anthony says, it's just a part of the toolset. Personally, I do hope you keep both contributing and reviewing--thanks for volunteering your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Following this edit to ColonelHenry's userpage, I've issued a final warning for incivility. m.o.p 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"the AN/I bullshit seems to be a Wikipediocracy conspiracy" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Added to WP:GAR

I have decided to nominate the article for a community reassessment, per peoples comments above. If anyone wishes to comment on it, you can find it at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pedra da Gávea/1. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Sportsgamaniacre and repeated violations of WP:NFCC

Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated WP:NFC, mis-licensed images in an attempt to ignore the policy, and does not communicate. Can an admin please step in and block the user? Werieth (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Should probably be indeffed until some reasonable conveyance of the user's proper understanding of policy is given. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Cricket chirps only? Werieth (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

More editor harassment

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

---

I started paying attention to Wickedangry (talk · contribs) maybe a year ago when they began making changes at List of captive orcas without any source material whatsoever. What seemed to be a bigger issue was how he handled his work being undone or receiving input or criticism from other editors. While of course any editor can blank their talk page at will, edit summaries such as for this blanking often leave a clue as to their attitude. Then there were edits involving no edit summary. Most recently they have delved into pure vandalism, including this edit that prompted a final warning from another editor. After the warning was issued, Wickedangry proceeded to vandalize the user page of the editor who reverted his vandalism at Justin Bieber. This type of behavior really needs to come to an end. --McDoobAU93 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - I believe the editor has had enough chances, given their four previous blocks. Outright userpage and mainspace vandalism are inexcusable. m.o.p 03:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Revert ip socks of banned user Jeffrey Merkey

Three ip sock of banned user Jeffrey Merkey have been editting topics that were favorites of previous Mercury socks. Novell, Drew Major, Eric Shcmidt, Groklaw.

These are the sock's 71.199.21.45 67.182.221.82 50.160.53.187

By following WP:BAN I am removing the edits which are easy to remove without damageing the article.

He will attack me, he will say I chould be banned b/c I am an SPA. That makes him a hipocrite b/c he said this when he tried to delete Groklaw : "people have the right to speak anonymously without being called an SPA, censored, or attacked"

Doesnt matter he is still violating ban. Bisexual Orchid (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You can report the user to SPI with clear evidence. Since Jeffrey Merkey is banned, all of his edits should be reverted and disregarded on sight as he is not welcome anymore to edit Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI would just block the ip but they are all old so its not worth it to block. I would report a named acount or an ip that was active. Bisexual Orchid (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 192.88.168.1

I am having a problem with IP 192.88.168.1, regarding edit-warring at Talk:Rule of law, plus violating guidelines about neutral headings.

Details: The IP started a new talk page section titled “Need a proper lead”.[135] Then I changed the talk page section header to something neutral: “Discussion about whether the lead is proper”,[136] with this edit summary: “Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it”. The linked guideline says: “Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it….Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.” The IP reinserted the non-neutral header here. Then I gave a warning here. And then the IP reinserted the non-neutral header here, citing a rule of etiquette that says: “Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar.” Of course, I did not edit any comment, only a header (which was obviously non-neutral).

Maybe the IP would listen to someone else other than me, with or without a block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let's hope so. I've reverted, with a brief edit summary. You are technically correct, though this is hardly worth the time; I hope you haven't reported at ANEW also. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No, it's only reported here. It's a small matter, but in another sense it's important to show that guidelines and policies actually mean something (note the article title). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you are violating WP:Etiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_talk_pages. Except in extreme circumstances, it is highly inappropriate to modify other people's contributions on Talk pages, regardless of whether you disagree with them. Additionally it is very inappropriate to change section headers on the Talk pages as this can be misleading and make the conversations hard to follow. I've explained this to Anythingyouwant and now I am explaining it to you. Arguing that slightly questionable neutrality in my wording is an excuse to deliberately change what I said is blatantly fallacious.

For the record, had Anythingyouwant asked me to make more effort to make the section headers more neutral in the future I would have agreed, even apologized (though frankly arguing that there is a lack of neutrality is in this Talk section title is at best quibbling). But given that Anythingyouwant has chosen to deal with this by changing my comments, and edit warring about it to boot, there is nothing for me to say but register a complaint.

Please put back what I said the way I said it. If you have a concern about it, say so on the Talk page. That is what it is for.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.38.155 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a lot more experience with and knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines than I do, but headings ought to be neutral. Thank you for the lesson though. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor

Worldedixor (talk · contribs) has had an incivil behaviour with me from the first moment I exchanged words with them. Two days ago, Goldenshimmer (talk · contribs) asked on IRC #wikipedia-en-help if somebody could have a look at an edit war at the article Aida Nikolaychuk; I intervened, removed a section that was not encyclopedic and ununderstandable, which read: "Fans around the world blame the bad faith impulsiveness and the unprofessional interruption by the two obscure X-factor judges Seryoga, a little known Belarusian rapper, and Ihor Kondratiuk for ruining a once in a lifetime, unique performance of Lullaby, that even Aida herself can no longer recapture or reproduce.". I had never heard of read of this singer before, and I told the user on IRC that I was going to AFD it (though I was not letting it being deleted) so that others could help improve the article, but never with the intention of having it deleted. And so I did. I notified the user Worldedixor on his talk page, and since then, it has been a long-string of unfriendly, incivil comments, at times he has even mocked about my culture, and somehow he discovered I'd visited Leiva, Colombia. He also went on to nominate, as he said, "solamente pa molestar" (only to disrupt), one of my articles for deletion, even though it is properly referenced (though it could do better).

Relevant links: [137] [138] [139] [140] [141]. I urge you to help me with that user; I believe that what he did was unjustified, as I did not nominate the article for deletion for its deletion, but he has gone mad. I had avoided responding any of his comments, but I have got enough. Küñall (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can't really comment much on Küñall's interactions with User:Worldedixor, not having looked into them thoroughly; but my own interactions with the editor haven't really seemed particularly problematic, and have on the whole seemed to indicate good intentions for the article, and a genuine desire to help. My main concerns from what I've seen from Worldedixor are an apparent lack of understanding of some Wikipedia policies, as evidenced by this diff (WP:OWN, WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Perhaps more disconcerting is this diff. It added an unsourced, somewhat WP:WEASEL-y comment referring to the competition judges as "Beavis and Butthead" and added an alternative transliteration of the name. The edit summary only mentioned the new transliteration; the lack of mention of the other change could possibly be interpreted as an attempt to hide an inappropriate addition. Be clear I'm not saying that's what it was, necessarily, just that it could possibly come across that way. I hope this helps, and that the situation can be resolved amicably :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not had interactions with him other than the AFD nomination and this thread. Golden, could you confirm what I said of our interaction on IRC? Regards, Küñall (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

" I told the user on IRC that I was going to AFD it (though I was not letting it being deleted) so that others could help improve the article, but never with the intention of having it deleted". Sorry, Küñall, but if you do things like that, you can expect a negative reaction. Don't ever nominate an article for deletion unless you think deletion is justified - and you'll need a better rationale than "Since I don't read Ukrainian, I can't check if this girl is actually notable in her home country". This can only ever come across as a bad-faith nomination. [142] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but still, at the time notability could not be established, the article used some youtube and blogspot references which did not make me feel sure about it. It was not, anyway, made in bad faith, as I said, I don't even have a real interest in entertainment-related people, I nommed it to raise comments to improve the article. The nomination, unfounded or not, does not justify the aggressive behavior the user has had. Küñall (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It may not justify it - I'd say that it goes a long way towards explaining it though. I suggest that you formally withdraw the nomination, and familiarise yourself with the purpose of AfDs before nominating articles in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been active here for over six years, I know how things work out Andy; it's just that I did not think of a better way the article could be improved, rather than just leaving a message on the talk page. I was wrong, though, this time. As Golden states below, the article at the time (for a winner of a local X-Factor thingy) did not prove this person was notable enough to have her own article, and that's the actual reason of nomination, but I would not let it be deleted. Since some four or five commenters wanted to keep the article, I thought withdrawing the nomination was trivial. Küñall (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have been here for six years, you should know better than to nominate an article for deletion that you didn't want deleted. Such actions can only be seen as bad-faith and confrontational. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Küñall, I can confirm that you said in IRC that you would AfD it, and that you wouldn't let it be deleted. Luckily the discussion was still in my XChat scrollback, so if we need logs I can provide them. User:AndyTheGrump: I think it's significant that Küñall AfDed the article before it had much in the way of references or content (given the lack of additional information, I consider the AfD to have been quite understandable and good-faith at that time). It was only after I found the corresponding Ukrainian article, translated it, and merged it into the English article (providing references and additional content) that Küñall stated he would not let it be deleted. My assumption was that since he had initiated the AfD process (at a time when it made sense) he wanted to let it run its full course, rather than aborting it (just my interpretation of what happened). Obviously I am not impartial in this discussion (just something to keep in mind in the interest of full disclosure). Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that Küñall replied while I was writing. Sorry :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Further comments: For me, this diff and this diff seemed to indicate good faith on User:Worldedixor's part. Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I like to think that everyone involved is trying to help the encyclopedia. Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

He may act in good faith, but he sure loses his temper too quick [143] That came in right after I asked to solve this problem in a friendly way; instead, he went on to attack me. This really needs some admin's intervention. I have also reverted them three times for content removal on a GA-nominated article of mine which he AFDdded. Küñall (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day to all. I am currently involved in a GA nomination (Talk:Colegio_de_la_Preciosa_Sangre_de_Pichilemu_Students'_Center/GA1) upon request here (User_talk:LT910001#Yet_another_barnstar_for_you) of an article created by Kunall, although I've had no other interactions with the two users otherwise. This has quickly become an AfD for said article Colegio_de_la_Preciosa_Sangre_de_Pichilemu_Students'_Center which I support for legitimate notability reasons. Having read comments like this ("Mira, chico... You will never make a friend out me. Either you are an idiot or you think I am one!... Don't you ever instigate me and harass me and then ask for my personal e-mail. You are nothing more than a passive aggressive homosapien ") by Worldedixor on talk page ([144]), I do not feel Worldedixor would make an impartial reviewer. I have offered to review this article from good faith and do not want to enter this dispute, so I would request advice as to how to proceed. LT910001 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day to all. LT910001 (talk), you probably have not seen ALL the bad faith actions and unnecessary digs by Küñall, like attacking me, my article and my English (pot calling kettle black) and, in all fairness to you, you already said "I've had no other interactions with the two users". I am sure you do not have time to research every single detail to be "fair and unbiased" and judge me correctly, none of us does, and our time is better spent cooperating and editing Wikipedia in good faith. I admit that it is hard to remain civil when instigated, and there is ample evidence of such, and I am not the only one who saw his actions being in bad-faith and confrontational. Also, his, now defunct afd of Aida's article was perplexing, and his sorry justification added insult to injury. Most importantly, he robbed the enjoyment of creating an important article of a notable singer, a fruit of a lot of hard work and almost impossible research for someone who does not speak Ukrainian, about what may be the next Susan Boyle or Barbara Streisand. What you saw, and I mean "perceived", was my "reaction" to "his passive aggressive actions". By the way,for full disclosure, homosapien means "human" not homosexual. AndyTheGrump (see his remarks above) asked me to calm waters in Wikipedia's best interest, and I did. However, the "perception" of well-meaning people like you based on "INCOMPLETE and/or misconstrued facts" enable Küñal who, in my opinion, NEVER donated any money to help Wikipedia survive, and whose overinflated ego drove him to violate Wikepedia's rules and create an article about himself and his buddies even posting pictures of himself on Wikipedia which I duly removed. As for what matters most here, the sheer lack of notability criteria for a student center of a high school in a small town, one of million student centers in the world, I believe, is a no brainer. I am out of here. My wonderful life in paradise is calling me. God bless. Worldedixor (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Küñall: I'm not denying that there are some definite problems here. I was just trying to clarify my experience of my own interactions with User:Worldedixor. Still hoping for a happy ending for all involved :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the user has a long string of incivil discussions. These include: this one from April 2011 ([145] [146]), everyone who edits his userpage is an "overinflated and mean spirited ego" ([147]; "I42 is a troll of another handle and is NOT allowed to scold me nor write on MY Talk page."); all these from his own talk page. He has also canvassed some users to "keep" his article: [148] [149]. Some golden quotes: "This is what happens when an "uninformed" user with little or no world experience and cannot even read Ukrainian rush, in bad faith and without extensive research, to delete an article" (...) " I cannot defeat uninformed ignorance", "with all due respect, I would not support any of your applications to become an admin", "Listen, chico. (...) Please stop acting in bad faith. Wikipedia has a million articles that needs your free time, so get busy. Please do not come and threaten to delete my article of Aida, a notable person, and please do not revert 3 times my edits without ANY discussion. You are not a dictator here and your POV is not all that matters in Wikipedia. I will assume good faith and ask you not to bother me or try again to delete the article on Aida", "I agree that we have a challenge considering many people are ignorant of where Ukraine is", "Removing unnecessary and offensive "warning signs" on MY wall by an hp user who thinks he is important", "assuming you were acting in good faith, not just mamando gallo (note by Kuñall: mamando gallo means "to suck a woman's vagina" in Colombia and Venezuela) by purposely disrespecting Aida and calling her a "girl", then what are you doing here? and why did you stick your nose where it obviously doesn't belong? and why did you interfere with the flow of a newly created article, and requested to delete a subject that you know nothing about, that you have never researched and, by your own admittance, you are incapable of understanding?", "removed an "in your face" image placed by Küñall to give "his" post an imaginary self-importance over everyone else's on "my page"". Additionally, Worldedixor misunderstands the WP:AGF guideline by justifying some of his actions as being made with good faith, when they are on the contrary made with bad intentions [150]. The confrontational list of Worldedixor goes on and on, just look up his contributions. P.S.: I wanted to solve in a friendly manner, privately, I even left my e-mail on his talk page for us to resolve this peacefully, but the user rejected any chance of solution by stating: "Mira, chico... You will never make a friend out of me. Either you are an idiot or you think I am one!... Don't you ever instigate me and harass me and then ask for my personal e-mail. You are nothing more than a passive aggressive homosapien talking out of the two sides of his mouth as if no one will ever notice your schemes. Well, many can see you for who you really are. You can shove the notice where the sun don't shine, hp. (note by Kuñall: hp in Spanish is an abbreviation for "hijo de puta" (son of a bitch); I'm not actually sure if the user meant it that way, though.) You lost your opportunity with me when you acted in bad faith and continue to act in complete bad faith. You attacked my English when your English is as good as my Chinese. That's messed up, dude!... Stay completely away from me and my article, you freak, and don't cross me. You cannot act like an immature, non-likeable, antisocial, and bloated egomaniac troublemaker, and then expect "normal" people to be civil to you. All I can offer you is an advice to fill out a "Hurt Feeling" card. You acted like a punk throughout all this, writing BS on my wall and sending me a BS notice. I know all I need to know about you, and I sure as hell don't like you.". I'm not sure an user with such a hot temper, with such an hability to distort everything he sees to his favor, with such an hability to see problems wherever they are not, should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Please, please keep Worldedixor off from harassing me and my work. Küñall (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is an unfair dispute. I do not have the time that Küñall has. Küñall is unable to focus on a simple afd, yet has unlimited time to dig dirt and throw smoke screens at random in a desperate effort to defeat a very straightforward afd. I had to deal with his ilk before. Let me simplify this. I do not "live" on Wikipedia. I simply donate money to Wikepedia and I sometimes edit. I wish Küñall and his ilk would focus on editing articles in good faith rather than consume my time and create self-aggrandizing articles like the one I afd'd. In simple terms, Küñall acted I reacted. In an UNREALD matter, I noticed and nominated for afd one of his "many" articles that does not belong in Wikipedia, I did not nominate ALL his articles, as he is trying to prove... I will see this afd through conclusion. After that, I will simply enjoy my peaceful real life unless I see something I can contribute to in good faith on Wikepedia. As for the afd, I will also simplify it. Are Küñall and his pals notable? No. Is his student center notable? No. Ergo, neither his pictures nor his article should be in Wikipedia. Any sensible editor who disagrees with my sound argument, please show me reliable sources of the notability of Küñall and his pals, minors or otherwise, and the notability of his "random" student center, one of millions in the world. Let me simplify this even further, had Küñall been acting in good faith rather than press a self-serving agenda, he would have told the truth and admitted that he is NOT notable by any stretch of the imagination, therefore his name and pictures do NOT belong in an encyclopedia. He would have also been the first to remove his pictures and SUPPORT the deletion of this self-aggrandizing article when I nominated it for afd rather than hinder it with one smoke screen after another. IN CONCLUSION, it is my strong opinion, based on facts presented, that Küñall continues a systematic pattern of acting in bad faith and his credibility as far as his questionable notability is concerned is shattered. One final thought: Wouldn't life have been a bit simpler, harmonious and peaceful if one editor took the time patiently to "think" before he nominates a good article for afd? Worldedixor (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense, time for blocks?

Since it seems evident that neither Worldedixor nor Küñall are capable of civil behaviour, and that both are intent on causing as much drama as possible, I formally propose that they both be blocked from editing until the AfD for Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center has finished. This is a ridiculous dispute that has been blown out of all proportion by two contributors, neither of which seems presently to have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not had an incivil behavior with Worldedixor, I have not made any personal attacks, I have just provided reasons for measures against them. It is my right to do so, it's never been in my plans here to get into unnecessary trouble, I don't normally get into discussions because I like to do my work at Wikipedia as a WP:GNOME and I'm going to continue doing so after this gets solved. I tried to collaborate, they went on to make personal attacks. It ain't my fault. And, this is my last comment here, I hate drama. Küñall (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I sincerely can understand your frustration, mate. I put this behind me hours ago, but I felt I must respond to Küñall's diatribe above without having all the free time he has. Since you too do not have time to get into and "correctly" analyze all the details, I can understand where you're coming from. Cheerio!... :) Worldedixor (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation. I don't think any of the reverts were covered under the narrow exemptions to 3RR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on Talk:Animal Welfare

A series of IPs have been making multiple personal attacks on me at Animal welfare. I reported this to this page several days ago and an administrator contacted 2 of the IP's to request they behaved with more civility and s/he placed a 7-day registered user block on Animal welfare The personal attacks on me have now moved to Talk:Animal welfare and have (in my opinion) increased in their intensity and extent of uncivility. Is it possible to place blocks on a series of IPs? What is the policy on my deleting personal attacks from pages - I would hate to see accusations of me "constantly lying" persist on pages. I have noted the policy that raising discussion about an editor should be noted on their talk page, but given that these IP's do not have a talk page, I have been unable to do this__DrChrissy (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• IPs do have talk pages. It would be helpful if you could give us some diffs of the alleged attacks (see Help:Diff). I'm about to go look at the talk page, and the article page, but it would save me (us) a lot of time if you present the evidence for what you think requires administrative action. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well that's a lot of fun. I'm about to go warn that IP for a kind of jackassery (unfair accusations of vandalism). The article is now semi-protected to ward off disruptive IP edits, no doubt from the same person (similar IP addresses, and similar low quality of English); they may well be interested in a lot of things but one thing is the pushing of a particular scholar, see Talk:Animal_welfare#new_welfarism_OR, exemplified by this edit. And I suppose the plethora of uncited complaints on the talk page are theirs as well. It seems that perhaps the article would be best served by a. attention from more editors (Gaba_p, whom I don't think I know, is in on the action, but the article could use more help) and b. semi-protecting the talk page (unfortunately), if a consensus from that talk page is that the IPs edits are disruptive (I'm leaning in that direction already).

  Then again, and I've only scratched the surface, DrChrissy doesn't come here with empty hands; I am troubled by this diff, which is a pretty curt revert of some serious content additions by Startswithj. Now, those edits also involved the "particular scholar" issue (based on this thesis--and please don't point out here that it's just a thesis and all that; that's known and a matter for the talk page); I wonder if DrChrissy suspects that the IP and Startswithj are connected. There was little explanation for the revert, and if no reason or suspicion is given, then one might claim some OWNership here.

  More eyes, please. Again, I'll drop a note for the IP, but the rest should be up to knowledgeable editors who can perhaps recommend if, for instance, semi-protecting the talk page is valid (it's an extreme solution). Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • A bit of editorial advice, DrChrissy: the argument that Jenia Meng's work is fringe (or not yet accepted, not positively reviewed, not decently published, etc.) needs to be made explicitly, not between the lines or in edit summaries. So, if you want to get rid of it without appearing like a crusader, start a section on the talk page, with "Jenia Meng" in the title, or start an WP:RFC), and get editorial consensus on the removal of said scholar's work. That way any edits that seem to be plugging that scholar can be immediately reverted with the note "see talk page", if the consensus is good enough, from a large enough number of different editors (say, more than two or three). RfCs are a great tool for this. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply regarding edit of Startswithj

I deleted the Startswithj edit because it stated that Animal Welfare "generally refers to a utilitarian attitude (my emphasis) towards the well-being of nonhuman animals". I do not believe this to be true. The fact that the previous wording "Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals" has not been edited or contested for so long, indicates other editors have the same opinion. Stating that Animal welfare is an attitude rather than a characteristic of the animal is a considerable change to the meaning of opening sentence and should have been taken to the Talk page prior to the edit. Having said this, I accept that rather than reverting, I too should have perhaps taken the proposed revertion to the Talk page, however, I did discuss this issue in many places on the Talk page prior to and subsequent to my reversion. I had not noted the editors name at the time and the potential relevance__DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person here. I wasn't the editor who added the word "attitude" (or "generally," or "utilitarian") to the opening sentence of the Animal Welfare article, as suggested by User:DrChrissy above. That wording was there before I made my first edit (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&oldid=577509336). I believe all of my edits were grammatical/syntactical corrections (punctuation, links), as documented on the article's History page. I didn't choose to follow the article after editing, so I didn't notice my changes were promptly undone. I have no association with IP address 124— (which appears to be in Sydney). My IP starts is 173— (San Francisco). …Wow. Startswithj (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies for incorrectly continuing your apparent involvement in this. I was responding to a message by a very busy administrator who has been trying to track someone using a range of IP addresses and is apparently attempting to evade scrutiny. I'm sure the administrator would offer similar apologies. Sorry.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't say anything bad about Startswithj's edits; au contraire. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to "A bit of editorial advice"

Thanks for your advice. It is not my intention to get the work of Meng removed, rather, I believe the impact of the work is being overstated and interpretation of it in Animal welfare has been misleading to the lay reader. Meng's Ph.D. thesis was published in 2009 so has yet to be widely examined and evaluated by the scientific community, unlike other arguments/hypotheses about animal welfare, some of which have been in existance for decades. I was pointing out that because of it's relative newness it was currently a minority point of view. I have not knowingly commented about the quality of Meng's work; I know Meng's supervisor and Ph.D. referees personally and have worked closely with at least one of them. There has been relatively little input on Animal Welfare or the Talk page on this matter to indicate what is consensus - your idea of starting a section on Jenia Meng on the Talk page is a very sensible one and I shall definitely consider this.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ph.D. thesis was published in 2009 so has yet to be widely examined and evaluated by the scientific community"

UNTRUE. The scientific community of animal welfare is well aware of Meng's study. The study was an 12-nation data mining project. The contributors (many collaborators) includes many leading animal welfare experts from different nations (see Acknowledgement section of 'Origins of Attitudes toward Animals' on Google book). And it has also been reviewed by many independent scientists too.

2009 were many years ago. Wikipedia article should catch up with the changes. Fast update was an advantage of Wikipedia. Even traditional publisher like books to be up-to-date.

Here is a list of peer reviews: http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/publications/Reviews_OriginsOfAttitudesTowardsAnimals_JMeng2009.htm

124.149.122.14 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, speaking of Meng, perhaps this thread should take a different tack: I just, on Recent changes, ran into this edit on Autonomy, where an IP from the same 124 range added a paragraph on autonomy citing the same dissertation. I wouldn't be surprised if other edits from the same range show the same pattern: we're dealing with someone trying to plug their own research. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• It's late, and my fingers are getting cold. But a quick search of our article space sees the same stuff (different parts from the same study on widely diverging topics) cited in Irreligion, Women and animal advocacy, Iran–Sweden relations, Social stratification, Sex differences in education, and a ton of other articles. They all are phrased like "Dr Jenia Meng organized an an Eurasian survey of university students" or "The initiator and principle investigator of the survey, Dr Jenia Meng...". This is spam, total self-promotion (typically one single edit per IP address (from Sydney and Wentworthville), suggesting that the IP hopping is, if not deliberate, then at least very convenient), and it need to be taken care of. I hope some of you who do rangeblocks will look into it (simply search for the name--plenty of unadulterated vanity) and can dig up at least a few rangeblocks; I did note some variety, but I'm sure at least a couple can be done. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The diversity of the articles listed above demonstrated Dr Meng's wild spread contributions (covers many disciplines) to science. It just proved the importance of Meng's work. She established 9 math indexes and discovered hundreds correlations. Many journal papers can only report one correlation they discovered. Which means Meng's thesis is equivalent to hundreds papers.124.149.122.14 (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit (speaking as an academic). Drmies (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. It's a textbook case of WP:REFSPAM. I'm removing more now, but someone should check again tomorrow once the search lists update to make sure we don't miss any. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

An academic uses the word 'Bullshit'? Which is your field of study Drmies? Coarse language? Judging by your past comment, you don't seem understand science. I suspect you are some sort of arts major124.168.63.167 (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've run into Chrissy occasionally, where medical and veterinary content intersects, and have always found her to be well-informed and reasonable. I couldn't find one review of Meng's thesis or any significant citations and this looks to me like pure spamming. I wouldn't have any objection to someone going through the Mengspam and blanket-deleting all of it, though it would be best if the person who did that had some understanding of the field (Chrissy or Startswithj?), so worthwhile text could be saved with a "citation needed" tag (wiki markup is {{cn}}), or saved citing another, reliable, source. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you see this on TP? "I already provided reviews (includes journal articles) from peers. I copy it to here again since you can't read. 'Very positive reviews of the book from peers can be found here. Reviewers include Marc Bekoff Chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights , Andrew N Rowan CEO of Humane society international. ' There are many articles including several journal/book articles that reviewed and cited the work. Go to the bottom of the page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.122.14 (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• In other news, I just semi-protected the talk page after further claims of "discrimination" and "ownership". See also User talk:Anthonyhcole, "Meng's work", where I left a note on the IP hopping, which I think can safely be said to be a conscious tactic. Can we please get a rangeblocker to look at the IPs? Drmies (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It might be better to set up an edit filter. SmartSE (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea, a wonderful example of intellectual censorship.

124.168.63.167 (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's only needed become someone (I won't say whom) is refusing to follow the rules of Wikipedia that they agreed to. Edit filters and blocks are reserved for those who are just too damn proud to actually listen when the rules are laid out in black and white. ES&L 00:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

'refusing to follow the rules of Wikipedia that they agreed to'

Can you provide evidence to support you claim? Which editor agreed about what?

This is how things works here: it is advertised to be open and free place. But when you actually get in, you found people throw all different sort of rules at you, bully you, insult you, harass you, tell you what you are doing is wrong, act as if they are your master(sick). They form gangs, play politics/bureaucracy, One thing I found very annoy is the bad (aggressive, uncivil, manipulative) people here will usually assume bad faith of you too. They are bad, so they think everyone is as bad as them, even if you are entirely different. I am interested in science/truth, but many people are here for different reasons. I am edit in good faith, because I think public should have access to good(scientific/up-to-date/balanced) knowledge for free.

124.149.113.105 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• For anyone who is interested (and Anthonyhcole, SmartSE, EatsShootsAndLeaves, I appreciate your help), look through my recent contributions. To keep a record, I've issued a (hollow) final warning to every IP responsible for those edits. Look also at the articles where they stuck that thing in--the range is mindboggling. I was getting ready to prepare a case for an edit filter, and I'm glad it was brought up here: it's necessary. If anyone besides me is interested in digging, check 23dx5assd. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, COI, and WP:OWN by John2690, Pineplanner, and IP editors

• John2690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pineplanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.111.45.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.17.66.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.168.127.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles I will be most mentioning are Pine City, Minnesota and Nathan Johnson (writer) plus a article deleted in 2009- Nathan L. Johnson. I'll use PC, NJ, and NLJ when referring to these articles.

I'll start with NLJ. This article was created over 4 years ago by John 2690. With almost 100% certainly, we can say that editor John 2690 is Nathan L. Johnson. The proof lies in this[151]. The email address for Johnson being the same as the name of the editor. Also check out this talk page thread[152]

An editor tried to CSD it was deemed inappropriate for speedy deletion. So an AFD[153] took place which ended in consensus for deletion. During that AFD however, two of the IPs above, 64[154] and 75[155], voted to keep the Johnson article. These IPs have limited edit histories but they are very similar to that of John2690. John2690's editing work has mostly involved articles about Johnson, Pine City, or events and people associated with PC and its surrounding areas.

Shortly after the AFD, John2690 tried recreating an article on himself, this time named Nathan Johnson (author) but it was speedy deleted. In this talk thread[156] an editor tried to make it clear to John2690 that creating an article about himself was clearly unacceptable.

From September 2009 to December 2012, no further attempts were made to recreate an article on Nathan Johnson. John2690 and IP 24 made many edits to the Pine City article. Over a three year period, several editors tried to clean up PC's notable people and events sections only to have their edits reverted by either IP24 or John2690. Here is a short but not complete list.

• 1 edit[157] reverted by IP 24[158]

• 2 edit[159] reverted by IP 24[160]

• 3 edit[161] reverted by IP 24[162]

• 4 edit[163] reverted by IP 64[164]

• 5 edit[165] undid by IP 24[166] with the edit summary 'They may not merit their own wiki pages but are def notable'. One of the persons being readded to the notable people list was Nathan Johnson.

• 6 this edit[167] and this edit[168] done by a editor with an exemplary history of working on a neighboring state's articles, are reverted here[169] and here[170]

There is a half a dozen more instances of this. Some of the edits that were done were by IPs and some may have arguable they but were reverted without argument.

Which brings us to January of this year when a brand new editor Pineplanner created Nathan Johnson (writer). Nathan Johnson is a city planner for Pine City. It has to believed Pineplanner is Johnson and again he is created an article about himself. After creating the newest article, Pineplanner made no further edits.

IP 24 and John2690 have both been involved with editing[171] the new article. When I attempted to fix[172] the article for being overcategorized and put in a proper category instead, I got reverted.

I soon discovered that the latest article was a recreation of a deleted article, so I nominated it for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion was declined it, so I AFD[173] it.

We have here an editor who created an article about himself, attempted to subvert an AFD by editing offline, and has pretty much claimed ownership to at least one article. We have sockpuppetry, COI issues, plus WP:OWN. I bring it here to ANI because I feel something needs to be done....William 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity - does anything necessitate bringing this to ANI instead of the proper location? m.o.p 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Because what is being done at Pine City Minnesota isn't sockpuppetry. The creation of articles about himself is a COI issue. That he is socking too, needs to be brought up. SPI won't do anything on the COI or OWN issues I describe above....William 17:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also the COI noticeboard, though I believe SPI would serve just as well for dealing with the socking issue. m.o.p 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander

• Lou Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User does some WP:CANVASSING, inviting six people to join a thread named "determining the level of consensus", all of whom share his perspective; he invites nobody else. [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179]. He apparently denies that he was canvassing (or otherwise his comment is too cryptic).[180] User has been on WP for many years (reportedly a decade). The article in question, Rupert Sheldrake, is under ArbCom/pseudoscience. vzaak (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies. Attempting to subvert this consensus by bringing in a number of editors who are fans of the subject in question is really quite disingenuous. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing in a nutshell: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." and "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The number was small, the message text was neutral, recipients were selected because they exhibited interest and ability in responding to requests for opinions, in being polite, in refraining from accusing and lecturing, etc. The intent to improve the quality of discussion was explicit in the notifications. Lou Sander (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User contacted only those who shared the user's opinion; nobody else. Relevant clause is "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions". vzaak (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that Lou Sander knew ahead of time that all 6 participants would agree with him? It's not canvassing if he picks 6 random people and they all share his opinion because they all base it on the same policy. You have to demonstrate he knew of their opinion ahead of time and specifically picked them to skew consensus.--v/r - TP 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps through morphic field Lou Sander "knew" they would participate in a particular way, however, it is more likely that he simply had a very strong assumed that would because they were all people who had spoken on the same side of the issues as Lou Sander had on several previous "discussions" on the Sheldrake page, so they are in no way a "random" audience.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How would I know if they shared my opinion? Nobody but me had responded substantively to THIS two-day-old anonymously posted good faith attempt to collect opinions. OTOH, there had been massive unresolved discussions of whether Sheldrake could be called a biologist. (This was being written while TP posted the above comment). Lou Sander (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Very bad form by an experienced editor. (Also e/c) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Those following the page know the opinions held by the six people. It didn't occur to me that Lou would adopt the strategy of denying that. I'll gather some diffs. vzaak (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if it can be demonstrated that Lou could reasonably have assumed they would support him, then it's a canvassing violation.--v/r - TP 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis, can you give me a ballpark of what you would accept as evidence? Like how many diffs for each person establishing their opinion? Must they connect directly above/below a comment by Lou? And must I gather diffs from everyone on the other "side" as well in order to show they hold the opposing opinion? This is a laborious exercise, and it would seem canvassing could never be proven using this standard: the person could always say "How would I know what their opinion is?" or "I never read what's in that diff". In a strict technical sense that is true, which would make WP:CANVASSING a useless document. vzaak (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me that there was reason to suspect that these six editors would support Lou and that other editors available in the same topic area would not. I don't need a bunch of diffs, I only need what shows me that Lou could know their opinion before he invited them.--v/r - TP 21:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TP: Is it legitimate for me to respond here? I'm happy to explain why those who were chosen were chosen. Lou Sander (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be. I'm sorry if it seems like I've stepped in to take some kind of control of this thread, I've really spent 0 time looking into this at all and I am only speaking to policy here.--v/r - TP 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis, the editors contacted have expressed their opinions as wanting the article to be more favorable to Sheldrake (if you ask me, they want to ignore WP:PSCI and other portions of WP:NPOV). If you cannot take the word of participating editors, then you would need to read a significant portion of talk page history. That is the only way to establish who believes what on each side of the isle. This would translate to many, many, many diffs. I know of no other way to conclusively demonstrate canvassing, and it frankly seems like an impossible task. vzaak (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to a conversation where this would become evident? It may seem impossible, but if you want to make a claim of canvassing, you have to be able to demonstrate it (per WP:NPA).--v/r - TP 22:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis, if you cannot trust the common-sense knowledge of the participating editors on the page, then the opinion of each individual on each side of the isle must be established through diffs. This is a herculean task. It's not embodied by a single conversation. It will take about 100 diffs or more to show this to you. I have a hard time believing that such standards have ever been employed in the history of canvassing complaints, but I will try anyway. Unless you have a better idea? vzaak (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What exactly common sense knowledge are you speaking of? Are you saying it is common sense that Lou approached editors sympathetic to his position? That's not at all how Wikipedia works. It is the standard that complaints require evidence, the heavier the complaint the more evidence required. Per WP:NPA: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." You have the burden of proof that the threshold for the accusation of canvassing. Specifically, you are accusing Lou of votestacking, so then you must prove that per WP:CANVASS this happened: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." I do not know how many diffs that takes you, but I've seen canvassing proven in much less than 100 diffs (seen it in a single URL to a twitter feed). But you have a doubly-hard task because not only do you have to prove that the folks he chose had a viewpoint that supported him, and he knew it, but you have to demonstrate that there was a pool of candidates who were not sympathetic to his ideas that he did not choose from proportionate to the number selected. So if 20 people support him, and 10 do not, a random sampling of 6 editors would produce ~4 that support him and ~2 that do not. Now, you may not be asked to prove all of that yourself, but you need to at least get the ball rolling by proving the first part: did Lou know the opinions of the 6 editors before he asked for their opinion.--v/r - TP 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TP: I was looking for editors who had contributed to the article and who might make rational responses to good faith requests for opinions. Such a request had been made two days earlier and had only drawn two responses; I thought it deserved more. Some of the editors who patrol the page regularly are, IMHO, uninterested in responding to reasonable requests for opinion. They pretty much don't do it. I didn't contact them, and I was pretty sure they had seen the request in question. (Except for one, who made an impolite non-response, they still haven't shared their opinions). All editors, of course, are welcome to respond to the request for opinion, and I don't want anyone to feel uninvited. Lou Sander (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou - It's generally never a good idea to 'randomly' pick editors and invite them to opine on an article. The appearance of canvassing, even if none has actually happened, is enough to derail consensus development. In the future, use the WP:RFC process and an Wiki bot will invite participants for you. However, to address what you said specifically, your definition of 'reasonable' might be the lynch pin that sinks your battleship. When you use your own judgement to determine what's reasonable, your bias begins to influence your decision. That bias is what causes vote stacking. You might think you're asking 'reasonable' editors, but when 'reasonable editors' can essentially be defined as 'editors who agree with me' then it's almost definitely vote stacking. Also, sometimes we're not aware of our own bias. Not trying to be offensive, but give meta:MPOV a read over and you might begin to understand why you just shouldn't even do anything resembling canvassing at all. Please do not ever do this again.--v/r - TP 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis: Got it. Thanks. Lou Sander (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis, my question now is practical: how many diffs per person would satisfy this? Would 7 diffs per person be enough to establish the person's viewpoint on Sheldrakian matters? This is still subjective no matter how you look at it. Must interaction be shown between each person and Lou? What's to prevent him from saying he didn't see a comment? Or what's to prevent the fail-safe stance of "How could I know what another person would vote?" And what would be the result if it is satisfactorily proven? We are talking about a highly disruptive user here (this was the long-form complaint) and perhaps spending time on the canvassing issue is not the best approach. vzaak (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak - You're asking for an objective answer about a subjective question. If you have a great diff showing Lou and one of the 6 conversing about that specific topic and Lou says "I'll let you know if I ever need your support", then that's enough for that 1 person. If you have 100 diffs from another person and they are being entirely vague about their opinion in all of them, then it won't be enough. Give as many diffs you think satisfies your point and if more are needed, someone will ask for more.--v/r - TP 01:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

TParis, could you please answer the other questions I asked? I think I deserve to know before undertaking such a huge project that appears to be without precedent in the ANI archives of canvassing complaints. vzaak (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't claim any knowledge of this field, but I'm going from past readings of ANI. You might provide as few as 1 diff, provided that diff somehow encompassed the whole group of editors who are alleged to be canvassed, to 1 diff per editor who was allegedly canvassed, assuming that Lou Sanders had on-wiki conversations about this with each editor individually, up to the sky-as-a-limit in terms of numbers of diffs or a talk page thread, provided that collectively the only conclusion that can be arrived at was that each editor was canvassed. Given that you are alleging 6 editors were canvassed, you've got your work cut out for you. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ian is topic banned from Plasma Physics and astrophysics broadly construed for fringe POV pushing. Anna is a parapsychologist, Tento2 has strong interests in astrology and is possibly an astrologer. Liz denied that Tumbleman was a troll (and one that was sympathetic to Sheldrake) and a sockpuppeteer despite overwhelming evidence and has made vague accusations that "the other side" are using sock puppets. There are a great many editors who could have been informed and have been quite active on the talk page but were not because they take a more skeptical approach, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

this notification by Lou is particularly telling. He titles the section heading with "Sheldrake/Tumbleman" although the section on the talk page has nothing to do with Tumbleman who had been indeffed several days before. Liz has been an ardent advocate encouraging Tumbleman and as can be seen here (uncollapse the Tumbleman results) Iantresman and Askahrc also speak in favor of him. None of the people who spoke against his actions in the AE were notified by Lou Sander. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

if you look at [this discussion about whether or not to use the word "hypothesis" you will find in support of the idea (indeffed user Tumbleman), iantresman, Annalisa Ventola. none of the people speaking against the use of the word "hypothesis" were in the "randomly" selected users notified by Lou Sander. Do you need more? I hate to have people have to slog through the mire on this topic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) Lou Sander's request seems little different to the request made my Barney the barney barney on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard on 7 August[181] and again on 9 September[182] and Dan skeptic on 9 October[183] (2) WP:Canvassing "is perfectly acceptable [..] provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion" (3) I am not impressed by the tactics used by some of the editors here, such as IRWolfie-'s comment[184] (a) warning me of my non-related topic ban (b) using a number of editors' affiliations and perceived beliefs to attack them per WP:WIAPA --Iantresman (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your topic ban Iantresman (talk · contribs) is entirely relevant since it highlights your lack of basic WP:COMPETENCE to understand the basic sociology and philosophy behind scientific/pseudoscienfic topics, combined with an ability to be disruptive to Wikipedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If Iantresman (talk · contribs) cannot see the difference between asking for help on a the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, for anybody to see, and seeking out editors on their talk pages .......? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 10:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I can demonstrate WP:IDHT repetition of arguments on the Sheldrake talk page if you prefer Ian. Specifically with regards to your use of material derived from the well known supporter of parapsychology Brian Josephson and representing his words as the opinions of the University of Cambridge instead, and other material along a similar vein (repeatedly), IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Barney It is not particularly constructive to question my competence, and others,[185] as it comes across as both incivil, and a very poor "argument".

@IRWolfie- I see the same arguments and points on both sides, which I believe is called "disagreement". But while I respect and will fight for your right to have alternative views, and describe them in articles, I find it repugnant that you seek to ban editors that merely disagree with you. --Iantresman (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The diff of Barney you show is him replying to an editor who was subsequently blocked for a variety of reasons, including competency issues (Wikipedia:AE#Tumbleman). I will also provide the specific material of WP:IDHT and your representation of material by Josephson as being implicitly endorsed by the University of Cambridge, and your ignoring of Josephson's controversial positions on Cold fusion, bubble fusion, telepathy, etc etc, when using him as a source, when I return later today, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) There is no justification for incivility, and I can't believe that you think it is OK to be incivil to somone who may subsequently be banned. If there is an issue, you criticise the behaviour (or the content), but not the editor. (2) I specifically said "there is no suggestion that the University officially endorses Sheldrake's or Josephson's views"[186] (3) For the record, I find your tone and confrontational approach to be most incivil and unhelpful, and it is certainly not the constructive approach to editing I would expect from an experienced and knowledgeable editor. --Iantresman (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not uncivil to point out a competency issue, as Barney has done. "For the record, I find your tone and confrontational approach to be most incivil and unhelpful ..." Considering I filed the Arbitration enforcement request from which you were topic banned for POV pushing, I think I can understand why you might not like my approach and characterise it negatively. In your comment you highlighted: [187]: "I would imagine that if the University thought there was any impropriety, adverse publicity, or even "pseudoscience", then they would drop the listing for the lecture like a hot potato." That is trying to use the University to give it extra legitimacy. As was explained already before that, Josephson also invited a homeopath [188], and the university did nothing there either. Universities seldom interfere with groups within their university, even the mind-matter unification project that Josephson runs, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I received a notice about this discussion on my Talk Page so I guess I'll weigh in. Personally, I don't know what Lou Sander's perspective is on this Sheldrake mess so I don't see how I could share it. The only opinion I have about this war of words is that I don't like to see Editors being bullied (regardless of the views they hold). I guess I'm on the same side of any Editor who thinks that discussion should be civil and everyone deserves a chance to be heard as long as they are not offensive or disruptive. And, I don't know how to emphasize this enough, this stance means defending people whether or not I share their point of view or opinion.

I haven't looked at the Sheldrake Talk Page in over a week and I've never edited the article. Lou thought I'd be a neutral voice in what is a heated discussion which, given this posting by vzaak, shows no sign of deescalating.

You know what would be a radical idea? Working with those who hold different opinions than your own to come to a consensus wording for this article that you all can live with rather than coming to AE or AN/I to challenge those Editors with whom you disagree. If all of this effort devoted to seeking sanctions against your ideological opponents was actually spent on resolving this dispute (say, in WP:DR), I think that Wikipedia would be a better place and I think it would lead to a stronger Sheldrake article. But it has become too much of a battleground now and Editors seem to care more about winning than reaching a consensus.

The biggest tragedy that shows how dysfunctional this argument has become is that now I've advocated dispute resolution and consensus building, I expect that I'll be accused of making a personal attack. I wish Editors working on this BLP could become more detached and objective but I'm not optimistic about this occurring. But now, if you don't mind, I'm going back to working on editing Wikipedia rather participating in these needless proceedings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"I don't know what Lou Sander's perspective is on this Sheldrake mess so I don't see how I could share it." Two people can't share the same perspective if one of them isn't explicitly aware of the other's perspective? That's great reasoning. EEng (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Liz, you have been rather quick to defend people without looking at or addressing the actual evidence (it's quite obvious you haven't even clicked on the links, particularly at Wikipedia:AE#Statement_by_Liz where you say " In fact, I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs,", which is directly contradicted by the links themselves, you also ignore the evidence that directly connects the forum troll to the wikipedia editor of the same name, which was also presented), including the accusation that because there is so much evidence that is itself evidence that he was innocent ("the detail some Editors have devoted to this sock investigation is definitely over-kill and I am a bit stunned at the apparent time and energy spent on compiling "evidence" and the minute dissection of how you phrase things and spell words" [189]), in the case of Tumbleman. In that case, 3 sockpuppets were found, 2 of the sock puppets had similar behaviour to Tumbleman himself, and including his idiosyncratic style: Oh boy chicken again and KateGompert and geolocated to the same region as Tumbleman.

You have principally found your role to try to justify Tumbleman being allowed to edit despite his problematic behaviour, where the evidence was quite convincing, but then you also hinted that other editors are sockpuppets without evidence because they were competent (i.e Dan_skeptic, as at Tumbleman SPI) and new ("And I see newly created accounts arguing pro- and anti-Sheldrake so I think there are socks on both sides").

Part of the problem with this article is people making unfounded accusations against people, and the same people dismissing well founded evidence of sockpuppetry (including multiple lines of evidence in the Tumbleman case, which lead to Tumbleman and his obvious sock puppets being blocked, as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman/Archive and [190] show).

Liz, you seem to be of the post-modernist opinion that all opinions are equally valid, and that the only difference between them is culture and paradigm, so everyone, by definition, is as bad each other and so the best thing to do is have to "camps" compete; that science should be balanced against irrationality (or the "not rational, measurable or scientific" in your words"). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, as I wrote to you before, there is room for your perspective, but you do yourself a disservice by supporting people solely because you perceive them as being on your side. Unless you are alleging a conspiracy among six admins, you're going to have to accept WP's verdict that Tumbleman was "thoroughly disruptive". At least look at the evidence. Lou Sander is also disruptive, as you can see just from this ANI: he doesn't acknowledge that he was canvassing, just like he didn't acknowledge his sockpuppetry even after a year-long block for sockpuppetry. vzaak (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black! I can go to any article about what skeptics call "fringe" subjects, make a single edit and attract a crowd of skeptics. Wikipedia has institutionalized a Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard on which Barney the barney barney requested help from other editors. [191] And again[192]. Then Dan skeptic requested more help [193] specifically attacking editors Craig Weiler, Tumbleman and Iantresman. There, Barney even suggested banning Tumbleman as a solution. It goes on!

IRWolfie, Vzaak and Barney have all participated in this organized canvassing for help.

Make no mistake, Skeptics here are being painted with the same brush used by the public for the Guerilla Skeptic Movement. Virtually all of the skeptics here have quoted James Randi and his foundation is clearly a sponsor for the GSM. Susan Gerbic is clearly canvassing for help making articles such as the Rupert Sheldrake article agree with the James Randi skeptical point of view. It might be a goo idea to distinguish yourself from the GSM!

Attacking Lou Sander for canvassing can only be seen as a latent attempt to eliminate yet another editor calling for fair treatment of a living person. Your blind drive for control of these articles has ruined Wikipedia. Please try to act for the greater good and not just the GSM. Tom Butler (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about your personal judgment of me. I don't care about this completely inconsequential argument over one article on Wikipedia that you seem to care so desperately about. This is truly a tempest in a teapot. What a colossal waste of energy you are expending on this. I've explained my position which you can take on faith or not.

So, go ahead, rage on...I think there will quickly come a time when the regulars here at the AN/I board will tire of hearing the name of Rupert Sheldrake and all the accompanying drama and will wonder why you can't all move on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As one might wonder why you cannot seem to move on, but continue to press a non-existent issue regarding Tumbleman. Your name, which hardly ever appeared here before, is suddenly here multiple times on a daily basis, as you seem to have appointed yourself an ombudsman of sorts. Please don't do that, go edit some articles, it's much more rewarding, and infinitely more useful to the project than what you're doing here. Really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My thanks go out to the diligent editor who notified me about this ANI thread. My name appears precisely zero times in the OP's post. I can't find it anywhere else in the ANI thread, either. The OP did not notify me of the thread. The OP is generally a very careful editor, who once actually tutored me in the etiquette of notifying people when you put one of their diffs in a noticeboard thread. But I guess the editor who DID notify me must have concluded that I'm one of the super-terrific 6. So I read through this whole ANI thread, and there's an hour of my life I'll never get back. I assume the distinguished editor from the great state of High Dudgeon notified me about this thread because of this post to my talk page. If this was canvassing, it was damned ineffective canvassing. I'm all over that talk page. The thread I was invited to review is one in which I didn't feel I had anything useful to add. So I didn't. Can we please do something fun now? I know of a dart team that's holding goalie tryouts. David in DC (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IP insists on double voting

An IP has requested a move of Millennials at Talk:Millennials#Requested move. He or she added a separate support vote, which is proscribed at WP:RMCM. He or she also made another comment with a bolded support vote (albeit followed by "(again)"). Per normal practice, I struck those duplicate votes, but the IP reverted me twice, insisting I was "changing" his or her vote. Rather than edit warring over this, I'd appreciate an outside party intervening, although I can't guarantee that this isn't a case of WP:IDHT. The issue has been discussed at my talk page and the IP's. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't vote twice. Used the words "Support (again)". It was VERY clear that it was supporting the discussion thread. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia -- just over a year or 18 months and didn't know that you cant use the words "Support Again". Or can you? This user, BDD, apparently changed my first vote by striking it. At the most, he/she should have contacted my on my talk page before striking ANY of my votes. Its not a formal voting procedure so it's not that big of a deal to me. But my words were VERY VERY clear for all to read. This complaint should not be here on this Admin site, instead, BBD should apologize and try to reach an agreement. Especially if BBD is a senior user who has made edits for over 9 years since January of 2004. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Striking the supports gives the indication that someone who had previously supported is no longer supporting, I have replaced the "supports" with "comment", since they are comments by the OP. Ryan Vesey 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. I would've been happy with that solution, but it seems the IP is not. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm agreeing with another writers comments who I'm allowed to quote. DO NOT change my vote. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

172, please change either of your comments so there's only one bold support from you on the talk page. NE Ent 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out the policy please?172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For the life of me, I can't remember where I read about this. Regardless, it is considered standard protocol to only Support or Oppose once. Should you wish to show your support for another editor's position without giving the impression of multiple votes, you may consider using terms such as Agree with (editor's name) above or Concur with above. Blackmane (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure; see WP:PILLAR -- that space down near the bottom between "respect and civility" and "not having firm rules." The written rules often follow practices which involve over time, and the practice is just one big bold support or oppose. NE Ent 21:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@IP: "Support (again)" could easily be interpreted as "Supporting, just as I did the last time this issue came up", so it's easy to see it as an attempt to fool the closer into counting two votes from one person. The custom (who cares whether it's written down or not, we're here telling you that it's how things are done around here) is for clarity each editor gets one "support" or "oppose" heading per discussion. Please do not reinstate the "Support (again)", which goes against accepted community behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you tell me what you mean by this "who cares whether it's written down or not, we're here telling you that it's how things are done around here". Thanks. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What he means is, even if it's not codified in writing, you should follow the established practice. The practice for most discussion processes parallels WP:AFDFORMAT, which includes the guidance to put a recommended course of action in bold at the start of a bulleted line. It also includes this guideline: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." In other words, only one bolded recommendation per person. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's not in writing how would anyone know that? I would rather have the editor answer this for themselves. But thanks because who "cares"? I do. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued disruption

The IP is continuing the disruption, editing the initial move request. [194], [195], [196] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Neil, but they're my own comments and nobody elses. Wikipedia policy allows me to occasionally edit my comments on a talk page. And the edits are constructive edits because I've added new information which apparently you don't happen to agree with. Also, please stop editing MY comments on the talk page -- and then accusing me of the same (editing my comments). So shouldn't this be a disruption complaint about you? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand and follow WP:REDACT then you should probably expect to see yourself here often. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows some freedom of expression here. There is no hard and fast "rule". So move on! 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor has no intention of stopping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And now inserting comments in the middle of other editor's comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm allowed to insert a response. Seriously, stop wasting my time.172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You can insert a response just not in the middle of my own. You are more than free to comment directly thereafter.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And now edit-warring against WP:MOS and WP:SEEALSO [197] (revert of Koavf's edit), [198], [199] (last edit came after they were pointed to the guideline [200]). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you made this comment about that edit: WP:SEEALSO - "As a general rule, the 'See also' section (on the Gen X page) should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." at 20:55, 24 October 2013.

However, again, your FACT CHECKING IS SUPER WEAK. The Gen X page does not have ANY of the links you claim it does. That's why they're at the bottom of the page --- so readers will think of related Wikipedia articles about other generations.

Question for you personally, do you read the articles before you revert stuff? Because you're wasting alot of people's time. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you bother to open the navigation template? All the wikilinks are there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And now harassment on my talk page [201], [202], [203]. Unheeded note to stop: [204] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for a bold admin

Please take a look at the discussion above, the discussion on Talk:Millennials and the discussions on User talk:172.250.31.151. Then, can we please have a block for User:172.250.31.151 for WP:TE, WP:IDHT, violation of WP:REDACT and generally disruptive behavior? I think the grounds are quite clear. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert N. Rooks

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

---

Robert N. Rooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs eyes on it urgently - and probably a revdel of its history. Contributors seem keen to restore a version which contains multiple gross violations of WP:BLP policy - claims of convictions based on material in violation of WP:PRIMARY etc. Sadly, one of the contributors is User:JamesBWatson, who as an admin one might hope would at least be familiar with elementary WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The article does run up against WP:BLPPRIMARY, but it is patently obvious that the information is being presented accurately. It should probably be removed, and the article should likely be deleted, but this does not require a revdel, which would interfere with the ability of the community to develop a consensus on these decisions. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I am "familiar with elementary WP:BLP policy", and, what is more, AndyTheGrump is well aware of that fact, because I have explained in several discussons why I disagree with AndyTheGrump's view of how that policy should be applied in this case, and he has seen my comments in at least two of those discussions, since he has contributed to the discussions after I posted my comments there: [205] [206]. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry? Have you actually read the post below? And are you suggesting that material cited to supposed 'court documents' hosted on the website of a business that Rooks has been in conflict with isn't in violation of WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) I wrote the above comment without seeing your comment below, but was prevented from posting it immediately, first by an edit conflict and then by some sort of problem with my browser stopping responding. (2) I was responding to the suggestion that I was not "familiar with elementary WP:BLP policy". The fact that the documents cited were copies on the website of a business that Rooks has been in litigation with is evidently relevant to whether they are reliable, but I had not noticed that fact (nor, so far as I am aware, had you pointed it out) and it is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether I am or am not "familiar with elementary WP:BLP policy". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In which case, you should be aware that per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not cite (legitimate) court documents: " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". Clear and unequivocal policy. Policy you seemed to be suggesting was not relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It is 'patently obvious' that the restored article grossly violated WP:BLP policy - not only was it citing court records in clear and unequivocal violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, but it was also citing supposed 'court records' actually hosted on the website of a business that Rooks has evidently been in litigation with. Frankly, I could hardly think of a way to violate WP:BLP policy any further... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Andy, and realize that crow without hot sauce is not good eats. You should know of a dozen/million ways to make grosser BLP violations; the less high-handed your rhetoric, the more likely it is that someone will listen. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Don't hate me, but I believe that Andy is right. Mind you, that does not mean that I am endorsing any of his overblown statements or accusations; I think that JBW is well aware of various guidelines but perhaps weighs things slightly differently. In my opinion, the article is so negative that it should not be sourced to such primary sources as are given (completely, except for one little SF Weekly article), and I will act accordingly by deleting it as a BLP violation. Gaijin42 and JamesBWatson, you know I respect your judgment, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have thought about this at considerable length, and decided that I was mistaken in declining the speedy deletion nomination as an attack page. I intended to come back and delete the article, but by the time I had a chance to get back on line Drmies had already deleted it. I believe I was reading CSD G10 too narrowly. I also think that I was giving too much weight to some aspects of the BLP policy and too little to other aspects. I would respectfully suggest, however, that AndyTheGrump may like to think carefully about the way he presented his case, and consider whether future cases might perhaps be better handled in a different way. It is entirely possible that I might have changed my mind on this much sooner had my attention been focussed purely on the issues in the article, rather than being distracted into defending myself against accusations of personal failure. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Block of user 108.95.180.195

I am requesting that User:108.95.180.195 be blocked permanently. This user refuses to establish a proper username and instead is using an IP address 108.95.180.195, which registered to AT&T Internet Services. The user has made over 500 disruptive edits and has been warned to cease by TRL, Mark Arsten, Fun, Manticore and myself. The user's talk page and contribution page speak for themselves.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is, of course, no requirement that a user "establish a proper username". As to disruption, I looked at the last few edits in the contribs, and they seem to be very minor formatting changes (many making sure that "Production notes is a bulleted list) but I don't see significant disruption there. Perhaps you would indicate specifically which edits are disruptive and how? I may well be missing something. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of productive edits. I'm more concerned by Oanabay's statement regarding establishing a username above and am extremely concerned by "never edit another Three Stooges film again". Without diffs from Oanabay, I can't be sure that the IP's edits were MoS violations, but even if they were Oanabay handled it the worst possible way. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan Vesey on this. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is being missed here almost in its entirety. This user is inserting incorrect running times on an endless amount of articles, many that I have had to undo. There have also been no less than three other users who have advised this user to stop making constant edits without describing the edits. The establishing of a proper username is minor and is just an observation. I wrote "never edit another Three Stooges film again" because this user had been warned several times by four different user to cease the disruption without explaining. Probably not my best moment on Wiki, but validated. Aside from adding incorrect running times, the user is doing significant vandalism by undoing corrections made per MOS:HEADING by User:Ewulp. Here are just some examples: [207],[208], [209], [210],[211]. See also [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217][218]

[219] [220] [221] [222]. I can list well over 150 more...Oanabay04 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, but you don't have the power nor authority to a) force them create a username, or b) topic ban them from any article or subset of articles. The challenge here, now that you have gotten off on the wrong foot with the editor, is to try and determine if it's actually vandalism, or are they sincerely trying to edit in good faith and have different sources, etc. ES&L 00:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in forcing them to do anything, username or ban them. I reached out to the user several times and edits were contiunally made. What is more, the user is undoing the corrections, and now other users are also reverting. I have no doubt this user believes these are good faith edits; but communication is key and the user has made no effort to explain him or herself. If they have other sources, great. Let's see them when the edits are made. Edits are MOS:HEADING MOS:CAPS. Oanabay04 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User makes changes, does not use Edit summaries, has been warned.

User:Cliff1911 makes changes, does not use Edit summaries and has been warned at User_talk:Cliff1911. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't been warned about anything recently, that I can see. Anyway he doesn't read his talk page I don't think. Here's his edit history in a nutshell. It sure is unusual, and so is his approach to making links to disambiguation pages, but I brought that up here before and the general vibe was that it's his prerogative to edit like that, it may be idiosyncratic but hey it takes all kinds, and he's not doing anything harmful or disruptive. I don't think editors are required to use edit summaries. I bet if he ran for admin he'd get a lot of votes and praise for that edit history BTW. To some people that represents an ideal edit history, I'd guess. If he's making bad edits above and beyond the occasional mistakes that we all make, that'd be different. Herostratus (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

He has been making tendentious changes as well. Here's the warning he got earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cliff1911#Edit_summaries. Are you saying he does not have to pay attention. I don't like cleaning up his mess when he doesn't say why he made it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the most recent set. Without Edit Summaries, there is no way to tell if these changes are based on anything other than caprice: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_newspaper_columnists&diff=578456667&oldid=578454817. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Holy moly Herostratus. And we're here asking them to mess up that remarkable, all-red pie? I've never seen anything like it. The other way around is more likely to occur. But, this is a collaborative project, and GeorgeLouis's point is well taken ("caprice"). A case in point is this old one, that they were asked about on their talk page ("Steve McQueen") in 2009.

  And to get even more serious (like twice starting a sentence with a conjunction), editors have been blocked (temporarily) as an attention getter, and editors have been blocked for being uncommunicative (not responding to talk page messages, board threads, warnings, etc.). Herostratus, you have expressed your potential unhappiness on that talk page, and I left a templated note long ago. In fact, you're on there a couple of times (are you attracted to the silent type?), in all kinds of friendly ways, and to no avail; you probably didn't even get a "like" on your Facebook page.

  So, I'd like to reiterate your point, Herostratus, about quality of edits. If a considerable amount of poor edits is dug up, then the incommunicativeness is an issue that should be dealt with. I'll leave that to GeorgeLouis and whoever else is interested. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but. I infer that he doesn't read his talk page and that any warnings and so forth would be not even the feeble buzzing of gnats to such a... focused... editor. Therefore, as a practical matter, our effective choices are binary: leave him alone, or block him. If we block him, I assume that he'd either stop editing forever or, when the block has expired, continue editing precisely as before. I wouldn't want to block him unless his net value to the Wikipedia is negative. He's been editing since January of 2008 and has made 24,500 edits and has only a few fairly minor quibble-type notices on his talk page (not counting the disambig-page things, which are simply notices to the effect "you might want to do this differently, but you don't have to"). That's actually pretty good for such a productive editor. So I assume that overall he's a good editor. So we should probably leave him alone. For the record, I want to reproduce the graphic showing his edit history, below. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of X!'s Edit Counter for wikipedia user Cliff1911.jpg

This editor is, as far as I know, not a robot or machine. He may be from the future or an alternate universe, though. I think this image ought to go into some sort of Hall of Fame somewhere.

It actually would be an interesting exercise to nominate this editor for the admin corps. He wouldn't accept (or decline) but that's technically a courtesy, nor answer any questions, but that's not required, nor does getting the bit require any action on his part, I don't think. I think it's safe to assume he wouldn't abuse the tools, and it'd certainly be interesting to see how this played with the "Too much time on drama, not enough on article work" crowd, who are generally numerous and vocal. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Herostratus, thanks for injecting a bit of humor into what is too often a humorless workplace. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

New user Zhuangyilong adding walls of irrelevant text to Talk:Main page

Can someone please put a stop to Zhuangyilong (talk · contribs), a new user who keeps adding tens of thousands of kilobytes of totally irrelevant apparently self-promotional text to Talk:Main page, and yesterday also to various other places on WP. Their behaviour is clearly disruptive. Doing it once can be an honest mistake, doing it twice makes one start wondering what they're up to, while doing it five times, as Zhuangyilong has done, is clearly disruptive. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a throw-a-way spam account. But I've given the account a 3 hour block to get their attention to their talk page.--v/r - TP 22:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(I'm in Europe so I posted this problem on ANI just before calling it a day and going to bed yesterday, so I was both tired and a bit frustrated...) I don't think it's a throw-away account. Judging by the walls of machine translated text he/she posted two days ago Zhuangyilong is a Chinese scientist who is trying to get international attention for his/her work in theoretical physics, so the name of the user account is his/her real name. According to the same wall of text he/she is in his/her late sixties and probably tries to get his/her 15 minutes of fame while he/she is still around to enjoy it. It isn't vandalism since he/she isn't deliberately trying to sabotage WP in any way, it is "only" disruptive, and not done the way it should have been. Which since Zhuangyilong apparently has problems with English makes handling it a bit complicated. The best solution would probably be having someone who can write in Chinese (which I unfortunately can't...) post a message and some guidance on Zhuangyilong's talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can probably try to drop the user a message. Unfortunately, I can't read/write Chinese as much as I can speak it. I'm relatively illiterate but I will give it a try. (Note:Please leave a message on my talk page if you want me to do so.) Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment dropped on your talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(One-time?) vandalism of popular (semi-protected?) page by active editor Podiaebba, reported by Rolf_h_nelson

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

---

Vandalism/POV edit: [[223]]; occurred last month.

Talk discussion here: User_talk:Podiaebba#September 2013. I opined that Podiaebba's judgement may be impaired by his anger and that he should take a break from editing Syria pages, but since we often clash on the Syria/chemical attack pages, he might not be interested in listening to me. Please let me know if this is too trivial to take to ANI, in which case I will keep that in mind in the future. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• One single edit is rarely a matter for ANI, and this is, as you said, a month old. So it is entirely possible that Rolf_h_nelson should have taken a break from editing last month; let's hope that they did. And with that, I propose someone close this, unless someone sees something else that's exciting. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As the editor that warned this user a month ago, I can vouch for the fact that this appears to have been a one-off occurrence. Closing accordingly. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User Darkness Shines is a proxy of T-banned MarshalN20

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

---

This is a warning to the Wikipedia community. User User:Darkness Shines is a proxy of T-banned user User:MarshalN20.

As posted above in Problems at War_of the Pacific MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces, Indefinite. See List of Tbans.

New is that User Darkness Shines has become a proxy of MarshalN20.

at 19:18, 21 October 2013 [224] MarshalN20 induced Darkness Shines to commit WP:PROXYING:

... My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review...

at 14:27, 22 October 2013 [225] in order to represent him in the talk page of the War of the Pacific, Darkness Shines asks Marshal :

EMail me the full quotes please

at 14:16, 23 October 2013 [226] Darkness_Shines explained why he preferred email (and this is a one of the finest examples of WP:GAME I have ever seen in Wikipedia):

:@MarshalN20: Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.

--Best regards, KS (wat?) 07:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have let MarshallN20 know about this, which you didn't seem to have done. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

business account

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

---

Just coming over from Commons, where I found all image uploads of :en-Lancastercavite (talk · contribs) carrying a prominent watermark advertising for a commercial business. A look at User:Lancastercavite/Lancaster New City seems to confirm that this user account is associated to the company carrying the same name. As I am not well-versed with :en's current policy for such cases, I leave it to you to take (or not) any measures. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just reported this user to Usernames for administrator attention. DoorsAjar (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Just an addendum to the above, I went over to the Commons and nominated his uploads for deletion, as there's inadequate evidence of permission, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Posting CIA Conspiracy Theories on Iranian Protest Articles

• SpidErxD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rezashah4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Details RezaShah4 has been monitoring the page 2009–10 Iranian election protests. SpidErxD has done the following actions on his edits.

• He removes sources that are from Israeli News Organizations or Human Rights Organizations.
• He removes any reference to Neda Agha Soltan (who was a photographic symbol of the Protests, similar to Tank Man in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989). He placed on his summary that There was no Proof that she was killed by [Pro-Government Forces].
• He makes references that the USA was responsible for the protests using sources from 2007 (two years before the protests).
• He makes edits saying that the Western Media caused the protests and that only Russia provided a fair and objective view of the protests.
• I contacted him and told him to stop this. In response, he told me that he was making it fair to both sides. I told him that the Sources make no reference to the Green Movement and that placing CIA conspiracy theories in the page does not make it "fair". He now just threatened to block me for Vandalism and is reverting my edits. He also called my edits Anti-Iranian, kinda like how Pravda called Boris Pasternak Anti-Russian.
• I checked his Edit log and I can see that he has been threatened with block before after violating WP:BLPCAT on the Article Asma Al-Assad as well as using the Talk:September 11 attacks page to debate share and debate conspiracy theories on there.

I am tired of watching over this guy, he is using Wikipedia to promote Pro-Iranian Government sentiment and CIA conspiracy theories on pages such as the following. I want an Administrator to do something about this guy. He isnt trying to be fair, he is only trying to promote conspiracy theories on this page. Until he realizes that Wikipedia is not a forum for this, he shouldn't be on here. Rezashah4 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

==

• I am not posting CIA conspiracy etc. I just mentioned Russia/Iran point of view in 2lines with RT,BBC,WhiteHouse.gov links.
• I didnt removed any Israeli or Human Rights Watch links.
• About Neda Agha Soltan he mentioned HumanRightsWatchlink] and wrote that "Basij killed Neda Agha Soltan" but a/c to HumanRightsWatchlink. She was not killed by basij and she was several kilometers away from protests.
• I didnt said that USA was responsible for these protests. It was Russian & Iranian Govt. who said these protests were planned.
• A/c to ABCnews [link] and WhiteHouse.gov [link] and GPO.gov [link] USA is funding Anti-Regime groups and trying covert actions against Iran but he is removing these links and data mentioned in these links.
• I have warned him here but he removed that warning from his talk page and he is still removing Russia,Iran point of view from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpidErxD (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rezashah4 is just posting Pro-American Govt. material and removing Russia,Iran point of view from Article. I am not removing USA point of view and when I mentioned Russia,Iran point view in article he removed it. We should mentioned both(pro and anti) point of view in this article. SpidErxD (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Officially, Since 2006, USA is funding Anti-Regime groups in Iran

According to Russian State tv, these protests were planned and they called it a Western Media propaganda.

Iranian Officials accused Western Media for giving 24x7 intense coverage to these protests. Some Iranian Officials called these protests were planned by CIA

See what I mean?

Your references to US supporting Anti government groups make no reference to this article. The point of the HRW article was that she was not even protesting when she ::was shot, it was not disputing who the perpetrator was. Rezashah4 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I just mentioned Russia,Iran point of view with RT.com & BBC Farsi links and I didn't removed American point of view from article and please let the admin decide.SpidErxD (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

To Decide what? Whether the CIA, Mickey Mouse, Or Benjamin Netanyahu was responsible for Killing Neda? Wikipedia is not a place for that kind of debate. Rezashah4 (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Folks, ANI is not a place for content discussions, and Wikpedia is most certainly not the place for philosophical debates or fringe discussions. We only report what REPUTABLE sources have said, and personal or fringe opinion is not acceptable. To verify a reliable source, go to the WP:RSN. To obtain WP:CONSENSUS for the addition of material, have a discussion on the article talkpage and/or follow the WP:DR processes. However, ANI is quite happy to block those who engage in any form of edit-warrring (including slow edit-wars), those who continually refuse to accept consensus, name-calling, copyright, intentional obfuscation, etc. ES&L 11:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

a/c to HumanRightsWatch, "She was several kilometers away from protests, she was struck in a traffic jam, and there were no Basij forces when she was killed". a/c to FoxNews,CNN etc. "She was going to protest and she was killed by Basij". a/c to FoxNews,CNN "1st chemical attack in Syria was carried out by Assad" , but a/c to UN report it was rebels who carried out that attack. I believe in HumanRights,United Nations reports not in Corporate lies. SpidErxD (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I never even changed the article after this guy showed up. Im tired of reverting this guys nonsense edits and arguing with me over these Conspiracy theories. Rezashah4 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What you believe is not relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Wkoppel - unsound editing / competence issue

User:Wkoppel is relatively new as a registered editor, but edited fairly extensively under the IP address 68.66.31.117. Wkoppel’s editing interests focus on college sports – football and basketball in the main – with a particular emphasis on the University of Michigan and Ohio State.

His editing practices have been problematic from the get-go, including substantial wholesale changes without any edit summaries to guide other editors, e.g. here; unexplained and repeated removal of references that do not appear elsewhere in the article, here as an IP and here as WKoppel; repeated alteration of content to create internal inconsistencies in an article, here and here as an IP, and here as WKoppel, and changing articles in a way that is either flat wrong here or inconsistent with the cited sources, here and here.

I have, in a variety of ways, undertaken to draw this editor’s attention to these problems – template warnings, narratives with a more personal and (I would hope) approachable tone, and finally by obtaining a short block of the IP for repeated removal of content. See User_talk:68.66.31.117 and User talk:Wkoppel. (I am also not the only editor to try to address these issues – see the IP talk page.) He has never once responded to any comment, on his Talk page or on mine.

I did succeed in persuading the editor to begin including edit summaries. How helpful or enlightening they are is an open issue, but at least he does it. Other than that he has continued to edit sloppily, for example by introducing raw factual errors (several examples above are quite recent) and making significant factual edits without referring to any source, e.g. here.

In short, he makes bad edits; he continues to make them after the problems have been noted to him; he completely refuses to engage in discussion about them; and it’s exhausting following him around to clean up after him. I could use a bit of help. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just add, in anticipation of others' possible questions, that 1) very few of his edits even approach "vandalism" (repeatedly removing citations the main exception); 2) while he has reinserted a few edits following my reversion, and in spite of the problems with them, he does eventually relent, and does not edit war; and 3) many of his edits seem fine (though, without proper sourcing, who can tell). I don't really question his good faith, but rather his ability to distinguish good from bad edits, to adhere to policies re sourcing, and his willingness to work with other editors. So far the only way to keep him in check is to review literally every one of his edits, try to decide if they're good or not, and undo them if they aren't. Perhaps someone here will be more successful than me in getting him to engage. JohnInDC (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Indefinite Block of Joefromrandb

Even a slight perusal of the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb confirms that there plenty of issues with the way Joefromrandb interacts with his fellow Wikipedians. He is currently serving his fourth block, a one-week vacation handed down for 'disruptive editing'. Joe's talk page lists the ensuing discussions from all four of his blocks. None of his responses were remotely acceptable. After the most recent block by JamesBWatson, Joe's first response was to tell the blocking admin to "seek help, son". Although I seem to recall Joe having said something to indicate that he would take to heart some of what was said at his RfC/U, it certainly appears as though nothing has changed. He still resorts to childish and malicious attacks on others and he does not promote an environment that is beneficial to anyone. His RfC/U was closed by NE Ent due to inactivity, and a request for it to be re-closed by an admin was placed on AN, where it has been ignored for about four weeks. Enough is enough. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I trust the admins handling the situation to do so correctly. Latitude is nearly always given for "venting" when blocked, and there was certainly some related "provocation" in the lead up to this block. None of that is to say that Joe's behaviour is acceptable - it's not - but an indef now, in these circumstances, would be premature. I won't say either that my crystal ball doesn't see one further down the line - but I think that's a line Joe may still choose not to walk. Begoon ^talk 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• How many chances does he need? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't count it that way. Is this like "How many roads must a man walk down?" I could never think of a good answer to that either. Begoon ^talk 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support per AutomaticStrikeout. I don't even know Joefromrandb and am uninvolved. However, in my view, he is abusive to other users and is incapable of civility in a collaborative environment. His editing history is prolific and his disruptive actions demonstrate that we cannot waste anymore time on this individual. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So which is it? You "only had short interactions" (which I was replying to, but multiple edit conflicted when you changed it to "don't even know Joefromrandb"? Now I'm just confused... Realise you're a Lord and all , but nevertheless it's all very confusing, sir, without any specifics for your Support. Begoon ^talk 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't actually have any interaction with him, but the RFC evidence, his contribution history and relevant discussions on his talk page is I think enough to explain his actions. Aside from the RFC (which I commented on), I have remained above the water over this matter, and I am allowed to edit my comment until you post. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly didn't mean to imply you did anything untoward - merely confusing. That's very much clearer now, I think. I am allowed, similarly, I think, to be confused. Begoon ^talk 16:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - other users with more serious problems, and with significantly longer block logs, have edited for much longer - and some continue to edit. What evidence is there of recent disruption that justifies the block being increased from 1 week to indef? GiantSnowman 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now--though the laundry list on the RfC is mighty impressive. True, admins do allow latitude for venting during a block. It seems, though, that most of Joe's venting is done outside of block time. I can tell you that admins will not look so kindly next time, but for now, I think this is premature--even though I'm kind of biting my tongue saying this. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But say it you did, nevertheless, to your credit. Joe does need to realise that eventually even the most forgiving of admins won't say that anymore - agreed. Now would probably be a good time for him to realise that, yes. Begoon ^talk 16:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, one can only hope. And mind you, I understand AS bringing this up; I can't fault them for that, since it's clear that Joe has rubbed plenty of people, including me, the wrong way. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, agreed. Nothing wrong with AS bringing it here. And you're right about the "laundry list", at the RFC too. I have to be honest, though, and say that running a simultaneous sideshow/commentary on it all on Joe's talkpage, after offering the main opponent that he'll "take up the torch" is maybe not a good look. In the end it gets the kind of sympathy I'm giving here as a reaction to the appearance of "ganging up" - which, honestly, just gives Joe more to be "aggrieved" about. There are better ways. But really, who cares what I think - it'll end in tears regardless. Begoon ^talk 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You can view it however you wish to, of course. I see Joefromrandb as someone who is vicious and spiteful, mainly because he has been so towards me in the past. In that sense, I guess it's hard for me to envision him being a sympathetic figure. Still, my choice of words at PBP's page probably wasn't the best. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not the choice of words that bothered me. The premeditated intent did the bothering. I'm funny like that. Begoon ^talk 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose. Still, most people who propose an indefinite block have a "premeditated intent". AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

They do. Sometimes they wear it on their sleeve a little less obviously, though. Whatever works for you is what I recommend. How's this going? Begoon ^talk 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per GiantSnowman - We've had worse & the worst still edit constructively (Most of the time) ...., Joe may not be the "perfect" editor here then again no one is.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support block allowing gross and repeated incivility over time on the grounds that "we've seen worse" is disgusting. Allowing uncivil users to continue simply because (supposedly) worse users also exist is unacceptable, as the environment they create is toxic to new users and indeed to everyone else. Even the youngest children know that 'two wrongs don't make a right', so why do so many Wikipedians still have problems figuring that out? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Tell that to my kids. When one of em does something wrong, they'll say the other did something much worse. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but the question is: does that work? If so, you're an even softer touch than I thought. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the recent behavior is enough to indef without at least giving him a chance to defend himself here. How he participates in an AN/I discussion can actually be a good indication of whether he has internalized the civility protocol. His edit summaries since the block don't inspire confidence, but I don't see enough ROPE. He did actually acknowledge a violation on his part that led to the block, which is an improvement. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"He did actually acknowledge a violation on his part that led to the block, which is an improvement." Heh. Sad but true. I think he may need to take bigger steps, more quickly - but good point, well made - I noticed that too. Begoon ^talk 18:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Snowman. Plus I don't like trying to indef someone when they are blocked. Unblock them so they can reply(and possibly hang themselves). If the seek help is the cause for this discussion, I'm even stronger in opposition to a ban. An administrator called an editor a child(on top of other behavioral issues around here) but Joe is facing a indef ban and as everyone should know, that's far from the worst statement directed to an administrator that didn't result in a ban. Get some thicker skin....William 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As I already told you, this is not just about one incident. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang time? What you didn't tell anyone here at this discussion is that you claim[227] Joe has been vicious towards yourself. On that grounds, I think you shouldn't be the one leading the charge for his indef ban but in the very least you should have made that clear to everyone here when you opened this discussion. You failed to do so....William 20:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I've heard everything! Oh, so I should be blocked because I had the unmitigated gall to file a complaint against a user who is known to be problematic? You have already succeeded in turning the subject of the discussion from Joefromrandb's behavior to an opportunity to ridicule and criticize me. Now you want me blocked? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI complaints end in boomerangs on the complainers here all the time. I'm not the only one who has been critical of you. What I did above was let anyone still reading this what could be a motive for this discussion. You didn't reveal, so I felt I had to....William 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for injecting yourself into this. I'm sure you've encouraged Joe to treat others with more respect and not create any more problems for himself. You have indeed been very helpful. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perusal of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb and its talkpage also confirms that Joe is a much-harassed user, a favourite target of baiting. I won't name the baiters here, but people who have followed Joe's editing will know what I mean. It's true that he shouldn't let himself be baited so easily, but I don't see an indefinite block as proper at this time. A recommendation to Joe to be more Zen, yes. (No, I'm not suggesting that Joe is uncivil only after being baited. But the readiness of some of his ... adversaries to pounce is reasonably to be taken as a factor.) Bishonen | talk 18:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

See... How come you always manage to say what I should have said so much more succinctly and so much better? Is it just because you wait, or because you are so much more clever? Don't answer. Begoon ^talk 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Begoon: I don't believe I know you, so I couldn't say who is more clever, but there's no doubt in my mind that Bishonen is clever. She also writes well, which may be more to the point than cleverness.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not because I'm a fan of Joe's but I, too, don't think someone should receive an indefinite block while they are blocked and can not participate in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose though he's running out of chances pretty quickly. --Rschen7754 19:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. AutomaticStrikeout, isn't this ANI thread enough for you? Joefromrand is blocked. I suggest you stop poking him on his page. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

I'm not poking him. He started the discussion. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe is confined to his talkpage. You're not. It's not necessary to respond to everything he says. (And he started talking, not unreasonably, in response to your ANI notification. You should have let it go from the start.) Bishonen | talk 19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

I don't agree that it is necessary but I'll stay away from the argument there. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, William. AutomaticStrikeout isn't the first person to file a complaint against someone who has wronged them. You can block every OP on this page if that were a crime. Quit stirring the drama pot more.--v/r - TP 23:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: We're screaming "off with their heads" too much around here and reaching for sledgehammers when we need flyswatters. Most bad behavior resolves itself with a block of 24-48 hours, the rest with a week or two. Frankly, most of the people who come here screaming that somebody hurt their widdle fweewings are bullies who rightfully got called on their crap or at least were in the tango just as much as the accused. The remaining few have a good reason to be here. The user is already blocked, so drop the stick. Indeffing is for serious problems, not snark and incivility. Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Snark and incivility are serious problems...(not that extending a current block to indef in a pile-on is a good way to address it). NE Ent 00:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support This isn't going to pass, but I want it on the record how I feel.--v/r - TP 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given that consensus is not voting is one of Wikipedia's sociological myths, perhaps you could briefly state why you support the action. NE Ent 00:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Bishonen, Montana. Once we get rid of all the editors with indefs and long blocks who's left. That's the trend around here. We should be focusing on working with people helping them adjust, learn and adapt, and especially making sure we have all of the facts before we hammer anyone with an indef. (olive (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
  • Are you volunteering? I don't think anyone with experience with Joe will volunteer.--v/r - TP 23:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and I find this current ANI filing to be of extremely poor taste. Yes, the way joe's going, he'll be at the ban point soon. Nothing AS has specifically linked to in terms of recent behaviour could lead anyone to think that time is now ES&L 21:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Spiritual support - This isn't going to happen, but my interactions with Joe suggest that he is entirely combative and unwilling to recognise mistakes. When one misreads "travesty" as "tragedy" then compares an MFD to the gassing of Syrian children, I think there is a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• On RFCU: I closed it because I was tired of seeing in the centralized discussion box on AN. I found about equal support between the views that Joefromrandb has been disruptive and the openers had sufficiently unclean hands to purse the RFCU. Therefore I thought making an overall concluding statement would be supervoting rather than accurately stating the consensus that said. I also felt that whatever benefit was achieved by having multiple editors express concern about Joefromrandb had already been achieved as much as it would be without me spelling it out explicitly for Joe. NE Ent 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• On thread and participation: It's SOP that a blocked editors comments with be copy pasted by some wiki-gnome if they wish to participate in a discussion board thread about them, so claims about unfairness because Joe can't participate are not substantive. NE Ent 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• One of the reasons JamesBWatson is one of the better admins is they're mature enough to ignore (per Other Duck) venting comments from editors they've just blocked. NE Ent 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think it was particularly counterproductive for AS to request a community review of the situation by opening the thread, but Bish was right about the talk page stuff. NE Ent 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Finally oppose extending block per not punitive. I place far more value on an editor's contributions post-block than statements made during the block, especially when they're being poked. NE Ent 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If Joe wants to get himself indeffed he's perfectly capable of doing that himself. Some people, including the proposer of this silliness, need to get themselves thicker skins. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

174.44.174.192

Could an admin please review Talk:Eurabia#Israel_is_not_a_member_of_NATO and do whatever is necessary to ensure that Special:Contributions/174.44.174.192 either complies with community norms regarding talk page use or is no longer able to misuse talk pages. The discussion is within scope of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Nothing good ever comes from talk page behavior like this in a topic area that needs less firestarters and more firefighters. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User has been notified about discretionary sanctions. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Yworo making accusations of bullying

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

---

User:Yworo has accused me of bullying here, and I find that unfair and hurtful. Could someone tell her to stop? Would an uninvolved adminstrator step in at Template talk:WikiLeaks and provide some oversight? StAnselm (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the process, but I believe that User:StAnselm should be topic-banned from all trans* articles. S/he has been edit warring on both Chelsea Manning and Template:WikiLeaks, in the latter case against consensus and against our policy on referring to trans* people only by their chosen names and pronouns. This is insensitive and appears to be quite willful. Yworo (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yworo - add some links that prove what you're saying, and show that it's disruptive, and this can quite readily turn into a topic ban discussion/community !vote ES&L 00:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support helping find StAnselm something better to do. The Chelsea Manning misgendering fiasco has been going on for several months and anyone with a fair amount of sense would know that going out of your way to keep referring to her by her former name is needless in most cases and makes for hostile environment. StAnselm argues at the start of that thread how the link to the article can't mention Chelsea because at the time the article was still at Bradley. Now that the community has thought better of the situation they are arguing how we simply must mention Bradley in that link. Meanwhile they go to the Chelsea Manning page and tag the entire gender section as undue which is rather laughable given how immensely the article is overstuff with diversions of all manner of Wikileaks information and how sparsely mentions of her transitioning are covered. Really they need to step away for a bit and accept that consensus is just not on their side. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

List of disruptive edits by StAnselm, not using trans* person's chosen name: [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234]

This is just on Template:WikiLeaks. There are more reverts and inappropriate tag placement on Chelsea Manning. Yworo (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Yworo

In making unfounded accusations of bullying, User:Yworo is clearly exhibiting a battleground mentality, and should be banned from editing pages related to transgender. Relevant diffs: [235][236][237] StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to read the talk page and review your repeated reverts just under the limits on 3RR will see that the accusation is actually quite well-founded. Don't forget about the boomarang effect. Yworo (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, since I am myself a trans woman, and since St Anselm is clearly aware of this, this is simply a further case of trans* bullying by StAnselm. Yworo (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously (sigh) You want to propose a topic ban on an editor when diffs have been provided of your editing being equally problematic? Probably not a good idea, that. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the diffs that User:Yworo provided? What is it about any of them that is problematic? StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, the fact that they are multiple reversions on a single template with little or no discussion? Indeed, looking at that again, you're lucky you didn't get an EW block for the recent behaviour there. And I'm sure I'm not the only the admin that looks really poorly on trying to get one's ideological opponents blocked because you don't agree with them. Black Kite (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's because I don't agree with her. But I really don't see why people should be allowed to throw around accusations of bullying. StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ready to support a topic ban, but the above statement (that making a report at ANI is a form of bullying against Yworo b/c of who she is) is completely bogus and merits a juicy trout across the cheek. Especially given that Yworo cast the first stone, as it was. I'd suggest Yworo take a voluntary 24 hour break from Manning-related material to gain some perspective.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The very same could be suggested to you for now edit warring on four pages, all tied to Chelsea Manning, and all tied to the same problem of misgendering this living person and defending your poor edits, demanding that of we have a problem with you being an involve editor hatting discussions calling you on your behavior we must use only your talk page, etc etc. Your edits demonstrate an entrenched attitude that disrespects trans women as far as i can see. Instead of accepting that your choosing to use pronouns seen as offensive and simply trying to do better you instead defend the practice and suggest that Wikipedia needs to change. To me that is a battleground stance and makes for a hostile atmosphere specifically intolerant of trans women. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sportfan5000's assessment of "Obi-Wan Kenobi"'s activities. Yworo (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note that sanctions can be imposed here per Arbcom-approved discretionary sanctions on Sexology issues. (whether they're deserved or not I'm not sure yet) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Going off the revert warring at Template:WikiLeaks alone I've given official warnings to 3 of the editors (including Yworo). Sportfan5000 has come up revert warring on at least two pages this week, and already has received 2 warnings, so I've given him a 0RR restriction. --Rschen7754 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Yworo has also accused User:Obiwankenobi of bullying here. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Xyzzyva

User:Xyzzyva is what we call Single-purpose account. A careful look on his history log[238] and we'll notice that the only thing he does in here is add IPA. He has done that on countless articles. I'm having trouble with him on Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (a FA). He added an unsourced IPA telling readers how to pronounce in Portuguese the name "Caxias".

Now the problem:

• According to Xyzzyva himself he has a "basic level" knowledge of Portuguese. See a box to the right on his user page.
• We have an user who admittedly has little knowledge of Portuguese adding guides on how to pronounce Portuguese names on countless articles.
• He added IPA with no sources at all.
• He added an unsourced IPA to Caxias on 25 August.[239] He added it again on the same day.[240] He waited for quite a long time and the re-added the IPA on 16 October.[241] He added it again on 22 October.[242] Then he added it again on 23 October.[243] The last time he found a "source": an youtube video that has nothing to do with IPA.
• Not happy enough Xyzzyva went around canvassing friends to support him[244][245] with the purpose of gaming the system and achieving an artificial consensus to support his view.
• I warned him over and over to stop doing that but he didn't care.[246]

Thus I'd like to request:

• Action against Xyzzyva to prevent further damage to Wikipedia.
• Revert all his IPA additions since he lacks knowledge in Portuguese and because they are unsourced.

A quick response is needed. --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"I'm going to ask you to stop your crusade to add IPA to every article you see." Can we add this to the definition of an SPA?

Xyzzyva has touched 8 articles so far this month, so we must hurry.

6 other editors not seeing a problem Talk:Luís_Alves_de_Lima_e_Silva,_Duke_of_Caxias#Pronunciation

Lecen has requested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xyzzyva saying one of the above mentioned 6 editors must be a sock.

Xyzzyva has posted to Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician for advice, and also Wikipedia:Third opinion

Ohhh, User:Lecen helped get the article to FA, so ownerousness?

Wow. Tomahto anyone? Shenme (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Posting Bolivarian Conspiracy Theories on Partido da Imprensa Golpista

• Al Lemos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Details Al lemos has been monitoring the page Partido da Imprensa Golpista since its creation.

• He removes any sources that don't interest him.
• He behaves like "owner" of the article, preventing editions from other people who are not consistent with him, and he not try to argue, leaving soon for complete reversions and block attempts.
• Most sources used by him in this article are non-reliable sources, from real blogs or blogs that pretend to be serious sites like Observatório de Imprensa and Carta Maior, organizations that are sponsored by left parties to attack the "capitalists". Other sources are from left-wing extremist writers. The entire article is a big Conspiracy Theory ceaselessly propagated in the head of the Brazilian people to feel hatred from the "richs" and elect "the saviors of the political left".
• This user is collecting fragmented information to create "something from nothing". This article is a masterpiece of illusion, with a ton of original research
• Running from the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Partido_da_Imprensa_Golpista. Debauched behavior and does not deny my edits, but try to demoralize them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al_Lemos&diff=578627695&oldid=578622182
• Debauched behavior and does not deny my edits, but try to demoralize them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al_Lemos&diff=578627695&oldid=578622182. I contacted him and told him to stop this. In response, he told me "I'm trembling in fear. Oh, you're busted! Rough talk. This guy watches a lot of gangster movies :)" Typical attitude of a vandal with much experience. He thinks he will never be caught, the system will protect him because he is "old in the house" and because he did a lot of editions several years ago, but today is a publisher that "wanders" here, almost without editing, but with the larger goal of be watching this article specifically.
• Al Lemos acts as a single-purpose account, if we look only to political articles. There is a great possibility that he is receiving payment of leftist parties Brazilians interested in maligning the press of the country (there are in Brazil and throughout Latin America, a growing trend to censor all news/press organizations , attempting against democracy, and this is proved by some sources I've included ).
• This article is a pure political propaganda. Al Lemos purposely ignores multiple connections and issues related to the article, and puts only the parts that interest to him, and also, insert original research without verifiable bases. He argued "This article was created in Portuguese in 2009", so what? Some people tried to delete this article in Portuguese because he is a giant COI, with massive speculation and accusations without foundation. This article, into the Portuguese Wiki, was created by a used that have a PT star in his personal page (complete COI, to the PT party is interesting to use the Wiki structure to attack his opponents), and the other two versions (english and spanish) was created by a very suspect user which came in wikipedia only to create these articles and never done anything more, disappeared (another COI). The article subject is a party that don't exist and the creator of the term has no credibility as a person, by the sources I've added (Paulo Henrique Amorim has been a staunch critic who openly advocates today, and yet was convicted of racism). This article is most referred to Bolivarian Propaganda than anything.

I am tired of this guy, he is using Wikipedia to promote PT Government, Boliviarian sentiment and Anti-press conspiracy theories on page such as the following. I want an Administrator to do something about this guy. He isnt trying to be fair, he is only trying to promote conspiracy theories on this page. Until he realizes that Wikipedia is not a forum for this, he shouldn't be on here. Rauzaruku (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fishface gurl - episode 2

This new (or returned?) user, already the subject of one ANI thread [247], has taken it upon herself to edit war over her placing a question about 'how the Third Reich would have coped with a Zombie outbreak' on the humanities reference desk: [248][249][250][251]. I see no reason whatsoever, in the light of the previous ANI discussion, not to assume this is either simple trolling, or a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Either way, I have to suggest that Wikipedia can manage well enough without her, and ask that she be blocked from editing indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)